Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: It may be unnecessary, but I make another appeal for brevity.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Unemployment

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when last he discussed unemployment in Scotland with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): My right hon. Friend has not specifically discussed this topic at any recent meetings with the convention. But over the past year he and I have had a number of meetings with local authorities to discuss unemployment in their areas.

Mr. Monro: Is the Minister aware that the intolerable level of unemployment in Scotland is a damning criticism of five years of Socialism? He is always talking about jobs in the pipeline and job creation, but the level of unemployment remains extremely high. What help is he giving to local authorities, through their development committees, to remedy the high unemployment figures?

Mr. MacKenzie: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would be encouraged by the fact that the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures for Scotland show a decrease. There are 11,300 fewer unemployed now than at the corresponding time in 1978. I think that that is mildly encouraging, but my right hon. Friend and I are not complacent. We are doing all that we can to encourage firms to

come to Scotland. By measures that we have adopted through Government action, such as the Industry Act, we are doing all that we can to promote growth.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: What explanation will the Minister give to COSLA for the 40 per cent. drop in regional aid which was analysed by Professor Donald MacKay?

Mr. MacKenzie: I have not seen anything of that sort. If the hon. Gentleman tables a question on the subject he will receive an answer.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that I tabled the very question that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) put to him as a supplementary question? The answer referred me to official figures that confirmed that the amount of assistance for industry, including REP and regional aids, had decreased substantially. That question was asked as recently as three or four days ago. Is not the hon. Gentleman ashamed that after four and a half years of Labour administration unemployment in Scotland has doubled and appears now to be increasing again? Does not that persuade the Government that their policies have been wrong and are still wrong?

Mr. MacKenzie: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that for some considerable time we have been in the midst of a deep recession throughout the entire world. We cannot cut ourselves off, as perhaps the hon. Gentleman wishes, from every other set of circumstances. I indicated to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) that the seasonally adjusted unemployment figure—that is the figure with which we are all concerned—has dropped from the corresponding time last year. I take some little encouragement from that. I am astonished that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has the nerve to speak in the House about REP.

STUC and CBI

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects next to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the spokesmen for the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Milan): I have accepted an invitation to address the STUC's annual


conference on 27 April. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State met representatives of the CBI (Scottish Office) as recently as 26 January.

Mr. Rifkind: Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the STUC some of the more distressing consequences of the present industrial action? Is he aware that Edinburgh presbytery has felt it necessary to advise mourners to stay away from the graveside when burials of relatives are delayed because of industrial action by gravediggers? Does he agree that there is something rotten in our state of industrial affairs when such advice has to be given?

Mr. Millan: I am not aware of that advice. I doubt whether it is necessary, but I shall examine the facts.

Mr. Crawford: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the CBI in Scotland and the STUC to stop pussyfooting about jobs and investment in Scotland? Will he tell them that the best way to increase jobs and investment in Scotland and to retain existing jobs at Albion Motors in Glasgow is by the direct channelling of Scottish oil revenues into the Scottish economy and not into the Westminster coffers?

Mr. Millan: Scotland is already benefiting considerably from oil development in Scotland. The latest figures, which will be published shortly in the Scottish Economic Bulletin, indicate that the estimate of between 55,000 and 65,000 jobs arising directly or indirectly from Scottish oil exploration and development in the North Sea has been maintained.

Mr. Buchan: Is it not humbug for Tory Members to complain about the present situation when we know their real attitude towards trade unionists and low-paid earners who are involved? Is it not time that both we and they realised that if we say that a group of workers should not go out on strike society must in return ensure that they enjoy conditions that mean that they do not need to go on strike? Despite the humbug of Opposition Members, a start should be made to provide such conditions for low-paid workers in Scotland and elsewhere.

Mr. Millan: There is a problem about public sector pay in relation to what

happens in the private sector. Therefore, the Government suggested comparability studies in which comparisons would be made directly between what is happening in the private and public sectors. They suggested that comparability studies were a way forward.

Mr. Younger: Does the Minister think it would be a good idea to discuss with the CBI and the STUC as soon as possible this morning's serious news that British Leyland is withdrawing plans for a further 2,000 jobs at the Albion works in Glasgow? Does he agree that that is regrettable, as labour relations there have always been good? It does not seem fair that Albion should suffer because of bad labour relations elsewhere.

Mr. Millan: I do not accept the press reports about the loss of 2,000 jobs at Albion. I met the general manager of BL Scotland last Friday. He assured me that the jobs at Albion are safeguarded and will be safeguarded for a considerable time to come.

Fish Processing Industry

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he proposes to take to protect employment in fish processing.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): I refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on 17 January.

Mr. Henderson: The Minister's reply on 17 January was to the effect that assistance would be available under section 7 of the Industry Act. Is it not the case that the industry has been in discussion with the Government for almost 18 months and that it could have been given that reply 18 months ago? There is nothing new that the Government have added to the situation. Will the Minister say specifically what assistance will be available to fish processing, in which so many thousands of people in Scotland are employed and which is under such grave threat at present?

Mr. Brown: I regret that the hon. Member was not here on Monday night when we discussed these matters in some detail. The discussion with the industry did not take place 18 months ago. The complication was that the herring processing industry asked for special assistance.


As I explained on Monday night, it is the only industry I know of that is in difficulties as a result of a shortage of raw material. Consequently, we do not have powers to deal with that situation. The powers of the Industry Act have always been available to the industry. We are being as helpful as we can.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is my hon. Friend able to offer any explanation of why Scottish National Party spokesmen find a cloud in every silver lining? Why is it that when a genuine offer of financial assistance is available to the industry, instead of encouraging companies to apply for assistance, they constantly say that it is no good and therefore discourage applications? Will my hon. Friend undertake to give us a month-by-month report on those companies which apply and what assistance they receive?

Mr. Brown: The provision of such reports must be subject to the fact that some of the information on the activities of individual companies is confidential. We had a meeting with the industry. We followed that up by writing and offering whatever advice, information and help we could give. We offered to hold a seminar in Aberdeen or any suitable place to advise on what is available under the Industry Act. Certainly I shall arrange to keep my hon. Friend informed.

Mr. Grimond: While accepting that the difficulty of this industry is a lack of supplies, will the Minister give us an indication of when the Government hope to make an estimate of what supplies will be available in the coming year?

Mr. Brown: Supplies of what? If the right hon. Gentleman refers to herring, the indications are that in 1979 it is most unlikely that there will be any relaxation of the present ban in the North Sea and off the West Coast. We are not in a position to say what the scientific advice will be for 1980. So far it is not particularly encouraging.

Mr. Gray: Does the Minister accept, further to my representations on behalf of the processing industry on Monday evening, that I am equally worried about the future of the haulage industry should the intrusion of East European factory ships be continued?

Mr. Brown: As I said on Monday night, the catching side of the industry is indebted to anybody who will buy the fish that it catches. This applies to the mackerel referred to by the hon. Gentleman. This has not taken anything away from the haulage industry. It has merely been another outlet for the catching industry.

Lanarkshire Health Board

Mr. George Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the way in which the Lanarkshire health board is administering the area under its jurisdiction.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): The Lanarkshire health board inherited considerable problems in its area in 1974. I am satisfied that the board is tackling these as effectively as circumstances permit.

Mr. Robertson: Will the Minister take note of the comments that I made during the Adjournment debate on Monday night? Will he make arrangements to meet urgently the Lanarkshire health board and ask it or his Department to investigate the serious worries expressed by people in the area of Stonehouse hospital?

Mr. Ewing: I apologise to my hon. Friend for my inability to be present at Monday night's debate. I read the report of the debate with great interest. I intend to arrange to meet the Lanarkshire health board at an early date to discuss the problems raised by my hon. Friend and the other problems that the Lanarkshire health board is attempting to handle.

Hospital Services

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an up-to-date statement on the operation of all National Health Service hospital, medical, ambulance and emergency services, in the interests of the health and well-being of citizens throughout Scotland.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the effect on patient care of industrial disputes in the National Health Service in Scotland.

Mr. Millan: Most hospitals are providing normal in-patient and out-patient services, although in some areas admissions are restricted to urgent cases and there are reduced laundry and catering facilities. Normal ambulance services are available for patients in most areas, but in Aberdeen only accident and emergency services are being provided.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that he will take all necessary steps to ensure that the lives of those in hospitals throughout Scotland are protected?

Mr. Milian: I give that assurance. In all the circumstances the welfare of patients must come first.

Mr. Fletcher: What advice has the Secretary of State given to hospital authorities to enable them to cope with the serious disruption that may occur on Monday if the unions fulfil their promise to take further industrial action? Will the Secretary of State say that he will encourage volunteers to cross the picket lines and give of their services in hospitals, wherever they are required?

Mr. Millan: We are now dealing with situations locally. I am glad to say that the health boards are basically coping with the difficulties. If the situation were to become worse, with widespread industrial action, I should certainly consider sending them further advice. I do not think that is necessary now. They know the position and how best to cope with local situations as they arise.

Mr. Sproat: Is the Minister aware of the desperate anxiety in Aberdeen, especially among the sick and elderly, about the fact that only an emergency ambulance service is now being offered? What later steps has the Minister taken to persuade the ambulance men to return to a full service as soon as possible?

Mr. Millan: Steps can be taken to persuade people, but at the end of the day I am not able to compel them to go back to normal working. The police are helping us to cope in Aberdeen. If the situation there became worse, we could still cope with it. I want to see normal services resumed everywhere. I am sorry that we have this difficulty in Aberdeen.

Mr. George Robertson: Will the Secretary of State accept that his initiatives

with the four trade unions involved in this dispute in Scotland have met with widespread approval there? Will he continue to make it his first priority to obtain a long-term settlement of this dispute and ignore provocations, from wherever they come, that would exacerbate the existing situation?

Mr. Millan: As I made clear to the House yesterday, the industrial action that has taken place in Scotland so far has been limited compared with what has been happening in England. I hope that that situation will continue. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that the various negotiations should proceed as urgently as possible. In so far as I have an influence in these matters, it will be directed towards that end.

Liquor Licensing Laws

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the workings of the Scottish liquor licensing laws.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Generally speaking, yes, but misuse of alcohol remains a most serious problem in Scotland, and my right hon. Friend has expressed his concern to licensing boards about the operation, in some areas, of the provision on regular extensions to permitted hours.

Mr. Knox: Will the Minister confirm that convictions for drunkenness have declined since the law was liberalised in 1976? Will he take this opportunity to advise his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of the great improvements which have accrued to the people of Scotland because of the liberalisation of the licensing laws and suggest to him that similar advantages could come to the people of England and Wales if the English and Welsh laws were liberalised?

Mr. Ewing: Far be it from me to get involved in a battle between England and Scotland, but I can confirm that drunk driving offences have indeed decreased since the new Act was introduced in 1976. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will note what the hon. Gentleman has just said in his supplementary question.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Although, naturally, we are pleased that the number of offences concerned with drink has been reduced, will my hon. Friend keep a very


close watch on the matter? There are public houses which open at 9.30 in the morning and remain open all day. While it may be that drunkenness, as reflected in offences, has declined, might it not be that the consumption of alcohol overall has increased? Does he agree that that ought to be taken into account?

Mr. Ewing: We set up a survey before the new licensing Act was introduced, and the survey continued after its introduction. We are just analysing the early results from that survey, and therefore I do not have any evidence to suggest that the consumption of alcohol has increased. But the fears of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) are rightly expressed, and my right hon. Friend and I will keep a close watch on developments as time goes on.

Mr. Thompson: In view of the increase in the practice of having bar lunches in Scotland, has the Under-Secretary of State made an estimate of the extent to which publicans and hoteliers have been willing to use the possibility of providing facilities for people to take children with them and to enjoy a bar lunch separate from the public bar?

Mr. Ewing: This is one of the great disappointments of the Act. When it was introduced it was hoped that publicans would set up separate facilities so that children could be taken there. Our information to date is that only two establishments—one in Aberdeen and, I think, a provisional one in Kirkcaldy—have attempted to take advantage of that provision in the Act.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the Minister agree that the Edinburgh licensing board has been frustrating the intentions of Parliament by not insisting on an afternoon break, except in exceptional circumstances? What does he intend to do to try to ensure adherence to the original purposes which Parliament had in mind when passing this legislation?

Mr. Ewing: It was not only Parliament which had the original purpose in mind. It was also the licensed trade. When we were putting this legislation together it was our intention to make the afternoon opening or closing discretionary. At the request of the licensing trade we made it mandatory. Now, lo

and behold, we find a host of establishments represented by the licensing trade applying for all-day opening. My right hon. Friend has issued a circular to licensing boards expressing our concern about what has been happening in these applications.

Industrial Disruption

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the number of persons laid off work and of the value of production lost in Scotland as a consequence of strikes since 1 January 1979 to the nearest convenient date; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Millan: The recent road haulage dispute led to an estimated peak of 34,000 persons being laid off in manufacturing industry in Scotland. In the past week the numbers have dropped steadily and now nearly all employees are back at work. A wide range of companies were involved and in many cases the lay-offs did not last long. An overall estimate of the value of lost production is, therefore, not possible.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is not that a condemnation of the Government's industrial relations policy for Scotland? Is the Secretary of State aware that this situation has now extended to local government? Will he be more forthcoming than he was yesterday and tell us what advice he is giving to local authorities about the level at which they are to settle the claims that are being made?

Mr. Millan: This is a question about road haulage, and I answered the other questions yesterday.

Mr. Canavan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for the recent outbreak of strikes in Scotland and elsewhere is the intolerable situation that many workers, particularly in the public sector, are taking home less than £40 after a 40-hour working week? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to eradicate this problem is to have further discussions with the trade union movement about getting rid of low pay, instead of listening to some of the hypocritical gestures from Tory vultures perched on the Opposition Benches, such as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) who was making completely a false allegation recently about


pickets in a squalid attempt to discredit the trade union movement?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the purpose of Question Time. I deprecate the description of hon. Members as either birds or animals.

Mr. Canavan: If I called the hon. Gentleman a dove, you would not object?

Mr. Millan: I do not accept what my hon. Friend said in the part of his question which referred to take-home pay. It was a gross exaggeration of the general position in both the National Health Service and local authorities. But there is, of course, a problem of low pay, and the Government have made certain suggestions about how it should be dealt with, in both the public and private sectors. The trade unions also have a responsibility here. If we are concerned about the problem of low pay, it means that there has to be some restraint among people who are better paid, and at the moment that restraint is lacking.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: In view of the damage that will be done by the strike of offshore oil construction workers, what action has the Secretary of State taken in connection with it and what proposals has he in mind for a possible settlement of that strike?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Department of Energy, in particular, has been active in trying to find a solution to some of the problems arising from the dispute, which is unofficial. A lot of effort is going into trying to get a settlement, but I do not think that there is much that I can tell the House this afternoon.

Mr. Fairgrieve: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that, as a result of the transport strike, the cash flows of companies in Scotland will be seriously affected in the next few months and that profitability during this year will definitely be affected, with consequential effects on employment and investment?

Mr. Millan: Yes, I made that clear while the dispute was on. With regard to cash flow, I gather that the Scottish banks have said that they will, in appropriate circumstances, try to help firms which are in difficulties short-term because of the strike. But there is always bound to be a residual long-term effect.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I accept what my right hon. Friend said about an onus on the higher paid groups to exercise restraint, but does he recognise that after these higher paid groups have failed to show that restraint, and after the Government have facilitated a high settlement in the lorry drivers' dispute by tampering with the instructions to the Price Commission, it is pointless to expect the National Union of Public Employees to advise its lower-paid members to settle for an immediate payment of 8·8 percent.?

Mr. Millan: I do not think that it is at all ludicrous. It is in the interests of every worker in this country that restraint should be exercised. If there are excessive settlements there will be a return to an inflationary position, which at the end of the day does more damage to the low-paid than to anyone else.

Art Students and Teachers

Mr. Donald Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has had about the provision of courses to enable Scottish art students and teachers to convert to the equivalent of CNAA honours degrees; and what action he intends to take.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): I have received 55 letters on this subject. The art colleges in Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen are considering the question of the provision of bridging courses to enable holders of the Scottish art diploma to obtain honours degrees of the Council for National Academic Awards; the form and content of such courses would be subject to the approval of the Council.

Mr. Stewart: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of the widespread dissatisfaction and anger among Scottish art students and art teachers because of their inferior status, with higher qualifications, as against English students and Scottish students who graduate in England? Is it not time that he met the Educational Institute of Scotland and the other body concerned to ensure that the position is cleared up as quickly as possible?

Mr. McElhone: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has the Adjournment debate on this subject on Monday


night, so no doubt he will have another chance to raise it then. It was the teachers' side on the Scottish teachers' salaries committee which pressed this matter, supported by the management. In the circumstances of the 1967 Act, the Secretary of State had no alternative but to accept its recommendations.

Mr. Carmichael: Will my hon. Friend accept that I understand that this is a much more complicated matter than is suggested by the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart)? Nevertheless, I feel that every encouragement should be given to art teachers in Scotland, on an in-service basis, to increase the qualifications to make them equivalent to those which obtain in the higher grades of English courses.

Mr. McElhone: That will be the intention of the meetings that are king place involving the three colleges, my Department, and, of course, CNAA. I shall do my best to ensure that we get these bridging courses so that graduates can achieve honours degrees.

Mr. Reid: Does it not follow from the Minister's answer that Scottish art students should apply to English colleges, from where, after a year's less study and fewer qualifications, they can return to Scotland and make substantially more money than Scots candidates?

Mr. McElhone: It is a strange attitude on the part of the SNP that we should look to England for guidance. I repeat what I said, that it was the teachers themselves who pushed this issue at the Scottish teacher's salaries committee. I have discussed this with the Educational Institute of Scotland and the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association, and I have to accept that it was the teachers themselves who wanted this.

Mr. Dewar: I welcome the measures which are being taken to sort out the problem, but will the Minister accept that the original difficulty sprang from the reluctance of the Scottish teaching profession and the Scottish art colleges to accept honours degrees and a differentiation between students within the Scottish art colleges, and that to that extent this is a self-inflicted wound?

Mr. McElhone: In 1972 my Department encouraged the three colleges in

Scotland to go for associateships leading to honours degrees. I am sorry that only one college in Glasgow accepted that.

Roads (Gritting)

Mr. Crawford: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held with the relevant authorities in Tayside concerning the gritting and salting of roads during inclement weather.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My Department's officers have been in frequent contact with the region's road engineers during the worst of the weather.

Mr. Crawford: Is the Minister aware that the gritting and salting of roads on Tayside and elsewhere in Scotland was much more efficiently and speedily carried out before regionalisation? Does he, therefore, agree that the regions should be scrapped so that once again local people can provide local solutions to local problems?

Mr. MacKenzie: Only one complaint was received by my Department about the gritting of roads in the Tayside region. That complaint was made by an official of the Road Haulage Association immediately after a very heavy fall of snow, when local authority staffs were already out working to clear and grit trunk and principal roads. I know from experience in the Strathclyde area that people had to cope with considerable difficulties in getting the roads properly gritted. To try to bring in the question of the future structure of local government with the question of gritting roads takes, I must say, a bit of a nerve.

Sir John Gilmour: Is the Minister of State satisfied that there is sufficient liaison between the regional and district councils on the clearing of footpaths and unadopted roads?

Mr. MacKenzie: That is a matter to be settled by the regional and district councils. The regional councils in some cases act as agents of my right hon. Friend in respect of trunk roads, but we hope that the regions and districts can get together on these matters.

Industrial Training Courses

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of people on industrial training


courses in Scotland at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: On 31 December 1978, 6,200 people were on training courses provided or supported by the Manpower Services Commission in Scotland. These figures do not include the very large number of people on training courses and schemes organised by industrial training boards or by employers as part of their normal training provision.

Mr. Younger: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, despite those figures and exceptionally high unemployment, a large number of employers are still unable to get the skilled labour they require? Does not that suggest that the present arrangements are not working? Will he, therefore, expand the training done in private industry, with Government assistance, to make sure that the right people are trained for the skills needed?

Mr. MacKenzie: I wrote to the hon. Gentleman not very long ago on this subject and indicated that we were concerned about certain skill shortages in Scotland. This is a matter that my right hon. Friend and I have discussed with the Manpower Services Commission. Reports from the Commission indicate that it is conscious of the difficulties and is bringing in future programmes to deal with particular skill shortages.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister satisfied that we are getting value for money for all these courses? Is he aware that some people going on these courses and training, for example, as boilermakers, are subsequently unable to get employment because they cannot get union cards from the boilermakers' union?

Mr. MacKenzie: The example cited by the hon. Gentleman is not known to me. Of course, we appreciate that it is frustrating for young people trained in particular skills not to be able to get jobs. We all understand the economic difficulties. But I repeat that, with the help of the training services division of the Manpower Services Commission, we have been able to identify particular skill shortages and the House can be assured that the MSC will be putting on courses suitable for these groups.

Mr. Buchan: Is there not a great contrast between the effort and money put in

by the community to bring about training and the failure by private industry to expand in this direction? Is not this another example of failure to invest properly in British industry? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is disgraceful in view of the record profits some companies have been making during the past few years of wage restraint?

Mr. MacKenzie: Individual companies could do a bit more, but the Manpower Services Commission has been helpful to individual employers who want to train their people. I understand that in December 1978, 6,239 people in Scotland were taking part in such courses. We are working with the industrial training boards and with private companies to provide the best possible training.

North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends next to meet the chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board.

Mr. Millan: I am to meet the chairman of the Board later today.

Mr. Gray: Will the Secretary of State draw the attention of the chairman to the Board's abysmal record in employment in Ross and Cromarty? Will he suggest to the chairman that, at the very least, he should reopen the area office at Dingwall, and that, at best, he should move the whole of the headquarters of the board to Dingwall, thus escaping the domination of the central belt, from which the Highlands have suffered for so long?

Mr. Millan: I have heard that before. I wish I could say that I had invited the chairman here to listen to that. The question of area offices is a long-standing grievance in certain parts of the area. I have no doubt that the chairman will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Whether he will act on it is a matter for him.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the chairman to explain why an EEC grant, for the stated purpose of extending electricity supplies in the Western Isles, will not make the slightest difference to the rate of the Board's programme?

Mr. Millan: I should want notice of that question, but I doubt whether it would make no difference at all.

Mr. Canavan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern throughout Scotland over the appointment of the former Mr. John Smith, first as a member of the House of Lords, secondly as Minister of State at the Scottish Office and now as chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board? Does he agree that it is about time that such public patronage appointments were made accountable to Parliament, as proposed in my Private Member's Bill during the last Session?

Mr. Milian: I have scored my hon. Friend off my list now. My information is that the appointment was very well received.

Mr. Grimond: I have no wish to defend the right hon. Gentleman against his hon. Friend, but will he take notice of the important point that this organisation should have its headquarters in the Highlands? I am not a Dingwall nationalist. I suggest that Kirkwall would be a good place for the headquarters. In any event, it should be within the Highland area. To have it in Edinburgh is ridiculous.

Mr. Milian: That is a matter for the Board. I gather that the number of people employed at the Edinburgh headquarters is limited in comparison with the total number of the Board's employees. There is some advantage in having the Board's head office in Edinburgh because the area covered by the Board is not just the Highlands. It extends to a good deal more of Scotland. It is a matter for the Board where its headquarters are situated.

School Building (Inner City Areas)

Mr. Robin F. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy towards outdated school buildings in inner city areas.

Mr. McElhone: Following my Department's discussion paper on school accommodation, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Department have set up a joint working party to consider proposals for a full review by the

authorities of the potential of the existing stock of schools. In the meantime, authorities have been given increased provision for expenditure on school building improvement. It is for authorities themselves to decide how to make best use of the resources available.

Mr. Cook: Will my hon. Friend, in a spirit of comradeship, come with me to visit Tynecastle secondary school in my constituency and there take note of the frustrations of some highly committed teachers who have to watch while new buildings and modern teaching aids are lavished on every area outside the inner city whereas they are asked to work in the oldest buildings with the oldest aids to combat the effects of one of the worst multiple deprivation areas in the whole region?

Mr. McElhone: My hon. Friend knows that the allocation of resources within the region is for the education committee. Nevertheless, if time allows, I am prepared to look at the position of this school, in concert with the regional council, with which I must work, to see whether we can achieve a satisfactory arrangement.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I acknowledge the problem raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). But will the Minister not lose sight of the question of growing communities, such as Portlethen outside Aberdeen, where, as a consequence of oil and other developments, these new communities are growing up with virtually no facilities? Will he do his best to ensure that communities such as the one that I have mentioned are given facilities, both educational and otherwise, which are necessary if we are to have balanced communities in these areas of development?

Mr. McElhone: I shall obviously have to consider that matter.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I have written to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Mr. McElhone: I get many letters from hon. Members asking for more and more money for school building. Hon. Members will find that, compared with the previous three years, in the period 1979 to 1981–82 we are proposing to increase substantially the amount of money for school improvement. As a former


Minister in the Scottish Office, the hon. Gentleman will know that roofs over heads and provision for basic needs are not subject to public expenditure constraints.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister agree that there is a serious problem in inner cities where a combination of a fall in the population and a sharp fall in the birth rate has brought some school rolls in primary schools down to a very low level? Is the hon. Gentleman and his officials looking at Scotland as a whole in this regard? Does he agree that there could be a serious problem of school closures as a consequence?

Mr. McElhone: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman understood my answer. We have set up a working party to look at the question of spare school accommodation. The first meeting of that working party will take place on 15 February. I understand the dilemma of falling school rolls. The Strathclyde region, in order to ensure that I do know, has chosen my area to close the first two schools.

Referendum

Mr. MacCormick: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the final arrangements made for the referendum on 1 March.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Yes, Sir.

Mr. MacCormick: Does the Under-Secretary of State agree that, as the "Yes" campaign in Scotland is being very successful, at the same time it would be extremely frustrating if too many people were not allowed or were unable to vote? Will he look again at the arrangements which have been made or promised for taking into account, for example, all the young people in the Highlands and Islands who will be away at university at the time of the referendum on 1 March?

Mr. Ewing: I agree that the "Yes" campaign is being very successful and will be more successful.
I should draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that, in relation to the other points that he raised, there is a later question on the Order Paper which my right hon. Friend will answer.

Mr. Dewar: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is his intention to produce a final figure which will take account of the deductions from the total electoral roll before the referendum on 1 March so that we know exactly on what figure the 40 per cent. will be calculated?

Mr. Ewing: I can confirm that my right hon. Friend will make an announcement to that effect before the referendum takes place.

Mr. David Steel: Will the hon. Gentleman take an interest, with a view to being helpful, in the present shambles over the broadcasting arrangements for the referendum?

Mr. Ewing: That is not a matter for me as the Minister responsible. I am tempted to say that I have an interest in all the present shambles, but I should prefer to leave it at that for the moment.

Mr. Heffer: If my hon. Friend is to take into consideration the various anomalies which have arisen from the referendum, will he also take into consideration the anomaly of the Scots who live in England and Wales and in other parts of the United Kingdom who are not to be allowed to vote on this question, but who also have a view on the future of Scotland?

Mr. Ewing: With respect to my hon. Friend, the House has decided who shall have the right to vote in the referendum. The House has made that decision, and that is the end of the matter.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: In the interests of fair play, will the Minister reconsider his original reply to the question? I am sure that he and his right hon. Friend will want to ensure that the referendum is conducted fairly. As the question on the ballot paper refers to "Yes" and "No" votes only, how can he be satisfied with the present broadcasting arrangements? So far we have had two party political broadcasts on the "Yes" side. Unless an arrangement is made soon, the charge must be levelled at the hon. Gentleman, his right hon. Friend and other members of the Government that the whole referendum campaign is being rigged in favour of a "Yes" vote.

Mr. Ewing: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the day will ever dawn when the Tory Party has an influence on what


is said in a Labour Party political broadcast, he is living in could cuckoo land. The parties are responsible for what they put out on their own party political broadcasts. In the democracy in which we live, the hon. Gentleman should not want to change that situation.

Building Regulations (Frost Damage Precautions)

Sir John Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the cost to local authorities in repairs as a result of burst water pipes during the new year cold spell; and if he is satisfied that current building regulations ensure adequate means of turning off and draining water from empty dwellings.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The cost of repairs to local authority premises is a matter for the local authorities concerned and I have no estimate. Water installations used in connection with the public water supply are covered by local water byelaws. These require premises to be fitted with drain taps to prevent frost damage and require occupiers to turn off the supply and drain the fittings where practicable before vacating the premises.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, from reports of what happened in some of our cities during the cold spell, that is not happening? With knowledge of what happens in Canada from relations living there, may I ask whether it is not true that other countries provide much better facilities than we do for preventing frost damage in dwellings? Therefore, is it not high time that we altered our regulations to save this waste of money?

Mr. Brown: No. I think that we all appreciate the unusual circumstances with which various authorities were confronted during the recent cold spell. But the byelaws and building regulations are adequate. There may be a lack of education on the part of private owners or councils, but the facilities are there. They are required to be there. Perhaps people should make better use of them.

Sir. J. Gilmour: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Western Infimary, Glasgow

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his plans for the future development of the Western infirmary, Glasgow.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The Greater Glasgow health board and Glasgow university have agreed that the phase II development originally planned for the Western infirmary site should not now proceed. A unified medical teaching campus and the acute beds required for the Western district, together with the services appropriate to a major teaching hospital—about 720 acute beds in all—will be developed on the Gartnavel site.
The use to be made of phase I on the Western infirmary site has yet to be decided, but account will be taken, among other things, of the proximity of the science-based university departments at Gilmorehill.

Mr. Galbraith: Why does the Under-Secretary of State keep on washing his hands like Pontius Pilate and hiding behind the Glasgow hospital board as if he had no responsibility for the proper development of hospital services in Scotland? Can he imagine a better set-up for a teaching hospital than existed with the Western infirmary next to the university? Surely any change from that is planning madness. Will he explain why he has concurred with that madness, or is he responsible for it?

Mr. Ewing: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I do not wash my hands of this matter. In fact, I raised this matter with the Greater Glasgow health board on 4 October 1976. If acute and geriatric long-stay services are to be developed properly in Glasgow against the background of a declining population, they will have to be done in that way. That is why I agree with the joint decision of the university and the Greater Glasgow health board.

Mr. Carmichael: Does my hon. Friend accept that that will be welcomed in the west end of Glasgow? Does he agree that the long and almost intolerable delay in making a decision was caused by the most appalling medical politics? I am sure everyone is pleased that a decision has been made. May I suggest that perhaps part of the Western infirmary


which will now not be fully utilised be made the new Partick health centre?

Mr. Ewing: I know that my hon. Friend is very concerned about the Partick health centre. I, too, am concerned about a decent site for the Partick health centre, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his earlier comments. The future use of the Western infirmary will be subject to consideration by a joint planning team of the health board and Glasgow university, and we shall see what comes from that.

SHERIFF OFFICERS

Mr. Canavan: asked the Lord Advocate whether he will issue a code of conduct for sheriff officers.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I have no responsibility for the conduct of sheriff officers. A sheriff officer is an officer of the court and is answerable to the sheriff principal who appoints him and from whom he holds his commission.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the grave public concern throughout Scotland about the recent case where three children were dragged from their beds at half-past four in the morning, and also the grave concern about the involvement, either directly or indirectly, of certain sheriff officers in private debt-collecting agencies, is it not about time that these people were told that that kind of activity is completely unacceptable and unethical and in danger of bringing the law into disrepute?

The Lord Advocate: I do not accept that my hon. Friend has stated the facts accurately. It was children who were being collected and not a debt. Having said that, I would say that this was an unfortunate and regrettable incident. I agree with my hon. Friend to that extent. However, the sheriff principal inquired fully into the matter and was satisfied that an error of judgment had been made and that it would not be repeated.

Mr. Buchan: I thank the Lord Advocate for that reply. That was a difficult case and one which, as he knows, I have been aware of for some years. The incident itself was not only regrettable but deplorable. I am glad of the assur-

ances that I have had from the Lord Advocate's office and the sheriff principal that this will not happen again. May I add a rider to that? If sheriff officers are used—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is quite right. The hon. Gentleman should ask a question.

Mr. Buchan: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I should have said "In addition to my question". In cases such as this, involving deep social work matters, it would be valuable to have the presence of social workers at any such incident.

The Lord Advocate: I agree with my hon. Friend that the incident was deplorable. However, I think that the matter has been adequately dealt with by the sheriff principal, whose concern it is. I note the second point put to me by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. and learned Friend in a position to instruct sheriff principals to give some guidelines to sheriff officers in carrying out their duties? For example, should they not be instructed to stop selling household effects on warrant sales at bargain basement prices which bear no relation whatsoever to the value of the person's property, and thereby stop adding to that person's misfortunes?

The Lord Advocate: I am very much aware of the point that my hon. Friend has put to me, but that is not the matter which this question raises. A code of conduct related to an incident involving children is what I have been asked about. Perhaps I could put the matter more generally. It would be constitutionally quite improper for me, as a member of the Executive, to give instructions on such a matter to the sheriff principals. That would be a most extreme constitutional anomaly. If it were desired that the Executive should play some part in this, the constitutionally correct procedure would be for legislation to be introduced to that effect.

PICKETING

Mr. Younger: asked the Lord Advocate how many reports he has received since 1 January 1979 regarding


alleged criminal offences by strike pickets; and on how many he intends to authorise prosecution.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Lord Advocate how many incidents involving breaches of the law, in relation to picketing, have been reported to the Crown Office; and how many incidents involving alleged intimidation, in relation to picketing, have been reported to the Crown Office.

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Lord Advocate if it is possible to have lawful intimidation on the picket line in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Lord Advocate whether he will make a statement on the law of Scotland with regard to picketing.

The Lord Advocate: I refer to a statement on the law of picketing in Scotland which I made on 31 January 1979 in answer to a written question by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Hunter), where I stated that peaceful and orderly picketing in furtherance of a trade dispute, whether primary or secondary, is not a criminal offence in Scotland. But if what is done in the course of picketing involves a criminal element, such as assault, threats of assault, intimidation, extortion, or breach of the peace, then it constitutes a criminal offence and is accordingly unlawful. Intimidation covers threats of violence or other acts intended to induce a person through fear to act or not to act as he is lawfully entitled to do. Since 1 January 1979 I have received seven reports of alleged offences in connection with picketing, including three where there were allegations of intimidation. Criminal proceedings have been instructed in five of the seven cases. In one of these five the accused pleaded guilty and was fined £15.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first those Members whose questions are being answered.

Mr. Younger: We are grateful to the Lord Advocate for making that statement on this serious matter. Is he aware that it has been admitted by Mr. Alex Kitson that, in many cases, his pickets

were demanding money for the crossing of a picket line? Does he agree that that amounts to extortion? Will he give an assurance that he will seriously consider prosecuting any such cases that are brought to his notice?

The Lord Advocate: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has put what Mr. Kitson said fairly. However, I shall respond to his wider question. As some of the cases where I have instructed proceedings involve extortion, these matters are sub judice and I had better make no comment on them.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to condemn intimidation unequivocally, and is he aware that if he does issue such a condemnation it will be warmly welcomed throughout Scotland?

The Lord Advocate: I am happy to respond to that invitation. I do condemn intimidation, whether by threat of violence or otherwise, as an indefensible inroad into personal freedom. I am sure that all responsible trade unionists would agree with that. But personal freedom includes freedom to withdraw one's labour and to make lawful protest against injustice.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the Lord Advocate agree that neither in his written reply to the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Hunter), nor in his reply today, has he made any reference to any concept of lawful intimidation? Does he agree that this extraordinary aberration invented by the Attorney-General has no place in the law of Scotland?

The Lord Advocate: The idea of lawful intimidation originated not with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General but with the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who is not present. It is not terminology which I myself would choose.

Mr. Fairbairn: Answer the question.

The Lord Advocate: I shall come to that. Intimidation in the sense in which I used it in my original answer would not be lawful. However, some threats, such as to take someone to court to enforce one's legal rights, may be lawful.

Mr. Dewar: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that all Labour


Members take every case of extortion and intimidation extremely seriously, but that even more alarming are the persistent efforts by the Opposition to scaremonger on these issues? Does he agree that the suggestion by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) that there had been an admission by Mr. Alex Kitson that extortion took place in many cases is exactly the kind of exaggeration and scaremongering which cannot possibly be justified, and that no such admission has or could be made because it would not be justified?

The Lord Advocate: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The criminal law of Scotland provides strong sanctions against illegal picketing, which can attract heavy penalties. The figures which I gave in my principal reply show that the Opposition have greatly exaggerated the extent of the problem—no doubt for party political reasons.

Mr. David Steel: Does the Lord Advocate agree that there is every distinction in the world between the right of an individual to try to persuade his fellow employees to withdraw their labour and the right of gangs of people, who are not connected with any particular place of work, to roam the country organising pickets? Since the law does not draw such a distinction at the moment, is not there a case for changing the law?

The Lord Advocate: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's first observation, but I do not agree with his latter comment. If he looks at section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, he will see that intimidation by numbers is expressly covered.

Mr. Fairbairn: Contrary to the Lord Advocate's last reply, does he not think that the small number of prosecutions is an indication not of the absence of intimidation but of its success? Will he encourage chief constables to make sure that policemen go to picket lines to ensure that not only vocal but silent intimidation is prosecuted?

The Lord Advocate: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman, as so often, has got the wrong end of the stick. The fact of the matter is that, out of seven cases reported to me, prosecutions have been instructed in five. That is a high

proportion. I think that the significant figure is not the number of prosecutions—I am prepared to go some distance with the hon. and learned Gentleman that that indicates that there has been a failure. But the extent of the problem, the scale of the problem, is indicated in that, despite the fact that I made an early announcement, as soon as this period of industrial strife began, instructing chief constables to report at once any incidents reported to them and asking the general public, indeed, to report any such incidents, only seven incidents have been reported.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that today's edition of the Daily Telegraph contains a very interesting letter from a representative of the Chief Constables' Association, which is extremely upset about the type of propaganda that has come from the Opposition Benches, suggesting that the police have not done their job during the various disputes that have taken place? Is it not time that we stopped having this sort of exaggeration from Opposition Members and recognised the fact that during these disputes there has been very little trouble and very little violence? We ought to be pleased about that instead of attacking it.

The Lord Advocate: I regret that I have not seen today's edition of the Daily Telegraph, but I very much agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: On the point raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), does the Lord Advocate agree that the Law Society report on picketing, published the other day, showed a need for a change in the law to clarify the situation? On the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made about only seven cases and five prosecutions, does he accept that the business community and the public have no worries about the impartiality or justice of the Lord Advocate, or of the courts or the police, but that what they are concerned about is what may happen to them simply by reporting an incident and having the matter coming to court? Does the Lord Advocate agree that the problem in Scotland is certainly a great deal worse than is shown by the seven cases which have been reported?

The Lord Advocate: I am bound to say that the hon. Gentleman himself reported a certain allegation to me in connection with Bellshill. That was proved to be entirely without foundation. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
I should not have thought that the case for changing the law had been made out. Recent decisions of the Court of Appeal in England suggest that there may be a civil law remedy against, for example, excessive zeal in secondary picketing. I think that recent experience, particularly of the ill-fated Industrial Relations Act, has proved that it is better to deal with these matters by means other than legislation.

BRITISH LEYLAND (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE)

Mr. Hal Miller: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing. Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the walk-out at Longbridge this morning.
It is a specific matter. A walk-out took place on a show of hands in defiance of the advice of the shop stewards and of the balloted decision of the membership.
It is a most important matter because it can threaten the whole of the corporate plan of British Leyland and the public funds committed thereto. It is also important that such a decision can be taken on a show of hands, without ballot, without reflection, without any possibility of a cooling-off period, and in clear distinction against the advice of the stewards.
The matter is urgent because the union officials will be meeting the company tomorrow afternoon, and the shop stewards of all the British Leyland plants will be meeting in Coventry on Monday. It is, therefore, most urgent that the matter should be discussed so that these people can be given a lead to return to work tomorrow while these meetings take place.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) gave me notice before 12 o'clock this morning that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the walk-out at Longbridge this morning.
I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said. As the House knows, it has instructed me to give no reasons for my decision. I regret that I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application o the House.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (RADIO INTERVIEW)

Mr. Fitt: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the radio interview given by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in which he grossly misrepresented the views of the political parties in Northern Ireland which has led to a serious increase in tension in that area, endangering any prospect of future political progress under his authority.
Last week the Secretary of State, the Shadow Secretary of State and myself, at different times, gave interviews to Independent Radio News, for a programme called "Decision Makers". That programme has been broadcast in various areas of the United Kingdom at different times. It was first broadcast on Sunday in London. People in Northern Ireland then heard of the context of it. It was broadcast on Monday in Northern Ireland, and I understand that it was broadcast in other parts of the United Kingdom.
During the course of his interview, the Secretary of State, on the basis of a very small, derisory number of people—fewer than 200—concerned in a poll which was taken for EEC purposes by the EEC, and which itself had been rejected by the EEC authorities as being completely unrepresentative of the political views in Northern Ireland, said as a result of the figures which that poll had gathered that it indicated the views of political parties in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State referred to the official Unionist Party as being the party of moderates in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Canavan: Disgraceful!

Mr. Fitt: The Secretary of State referred to my party, the Social Democratic and Labour Democratic Party, as going a little green, and he went on, by implication, to associate it with the party that is led by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), the Democratic Unionist Party. The Secretary of State said that we were extremists. Z

Mr. Stallard: How stupid can one get?

Mr. Fitt: This has caused a great deal of political tension in Northern Ireland. In view of the attitude that the Secretary of State has displayed, my party feels that it is completely unable to take part in any further discussions with that particular gentleman on the ground that he is now openly, avowedly and decidedly in the pocket of the official Unionist Party in Northern Ireland.
You, Mr. Speaker, will know the situation in Northern Ireland. For the very first time in Ireland, in each of the six national newspapers which were published yesterday, there was complete unanimity in saying that the Secretary of State, by his comments on this programme, had done untold damage to the political process in Northern Ireland. I make no comment on the opinion of the Secretary of State. However, I say to him that if he is to continue to make comments on the bona fides and the ideologies of political parties in Northern Ireland —[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—particularly my own, he is quite likely—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is about to tell the House why we should have an emergency debate.

Mr. Fitt: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that policy on Northern Ireland should be decided in this House rather than in a radio studio. I believe that the Secretary of State should not be in a position to create further political tensions by openly supporting one political ideology in Northern Ireland.
I believe that it is important and indeed urgent that this House should have the opportunity to debate the attitude of the Secretary of State, the present Government and Parliament to see whether it is the Government's intention to bring the people of Northern Ireland together rather than to make speeches which are liable to bring untold disaster to that community.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 noon that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the radio interview given by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in which he grossly


misrepresented the views of the political parties in Northern Ireland which has led to a serious increase in tension in that area, endangering any prospect of future political progress under his authority.
I listened with anxious care to the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, my powers are limited to deciding whether there should be an emergency debate, not whether the issue should be debated. I regret that I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

PUBLIC SERVICES (HAMPSHIRE)

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration.
I must first apologise, Mr. Speaker, for not having given notice of this matter before 12 noon, but I was informed only minutes ago of the following item which appears on the PA tapes. Under the heading "Strikes panel" there is the following item:
Secret plans to 'paralyse' a major centre in the South were drawn up by public service unions today. Mr. Shaun Hilliard, a NUPE official, said the area was in Hampshire, but he would not say where. Men operating all public services, including sewerage pumps, would be involved over several days. Action would also cover ambulance drivers and hospital workers. 'We are going to paralyse this one particular centre,' said Mr. Hilliard. He was speaking after a meeting of officials of public service unions, at Winchester, Hampshire. It was also announced that industrial action elsewhere in the South was to be stepped up, hitting refuse services, and there would be more selective strikes by school caretakers.
I submit that this is a specific matter in that an individual named in the press release has announced that a decision appears to have been taken to paralyse a major centre of urban population. Nothing could be more specific than that. I believe that it will be the view of the whole House, irrespective of views, party or otherwise, that this is an important matter. Any announced decision of this kind which will paralyse and deprive a major centre of population of its important social public services cannot be other than important.
In my view, this matter is more important than any item of business—I say this in all humility—that remains to be dealt with by the House this week. Therefore, I hope that it will be given specific consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) gave me notice as soon as he could, which was when the announcement was made at 2.35 this afternoon, that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration.
I listened with considerable care to the hon. Gentleman. The House will know that there are many important matters on which it is not possible for me to grant emergency debates. The House has asked me to give no reasons for my decision, but I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Viggers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to ask, through you, whether a Minister could be present tomorrow to report on steps which have been taken to co-ordinate Government effort should the threat outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) be carried out? This is an unprecedented threat which requires unprecedented action, and certainly a statement tomorrow without fail.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point of order will have been heard and, no doubt, noted.

BILLS PRESENTED

INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY

Mr. Secretary Rees supported by Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Secretary Millan, Mr. Secretary Morris, Mr. Joel Barnett, Mr. Solicitor-General and Dr. Shirley Summer-skill presented a Bill to confer power on the Independent Broadcasting Authority to equip themselves to transmit a television broadcasting service additional to those of the British Broadcasting Corporation and to that provided by the Authority under the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

SOCIAL SECURITY PENSIONS (PRIVACY)

Mr. J. W. Rooker supported by Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Miss Jo Richardson, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, Dr. Oonagh McDonald, Mr. Stan Thorne, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. George Rodgers, Mr. Neil Kinnock and Mr. Andrew Bennett presented a Bill to provide for individual privacy for those workers who have had to give an incorrect age to their employers in order to obtain employment; to prevent excess benefit being earned by such workers; to ensure that companies are not penalised by safeguards for privacy; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill. 71.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the permission of the House, I shall put the Questions on the four statutory instruments together.

Ordered,
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Estates of Deceased Persons and on Gifts) (United States of America) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on income) (Canada) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Estates of Deceased Persons and on Gifts) (Republic of South Africa) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (ECSC Decision on Supplementary Revenues) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]

WORKERS' FREEDOM

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect the rights of workers by regulating picketing and the closed shop.
Yesterday the House granted leave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) to introduce a Bill of which I was a sponsor to clarify the law on picketing. This proposed Bill goes further. It seeks to amend the existing law, which is far from clear, to protect the rights of workers against what a growing number of trade unionists consider to be the twin evils of unreasonable picketing and the closed shop.
I deal first with picketing. Section 15 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 makes no reference to the number of pickets who may attend for the purpose of persuading peacefully a person to abstain from working. Yet in the consultation paper on picketing issued last November by the Department of Employment these words appear:
The police can face problems of maintaining law and order at the scene of picketing, particularly in the rare cases"—
I wish to add that they are not now so rare—
of mass picketing, where crowds can often be difficult to control.
The document continues:
The general public have an interest in not having the highway or footpaths obstructed, in not having the nuisance of crowds outside their premises or homes and in the avoidance of violence or other breaches of the peace.
I agree with the Secretary of State that it is the sheer numbers of pickets that can, and do, intimidate those who wish to work. We must allow peaceful communication and persuasion, but we must not allow intimidation to replace peaceful persuasion.
This proposed Bill would limit the number of pickets in any one place. I suggest 10 at each factory entrance or plant. However, the exact number is a matter which can be dealt with in Committee.
The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976 changed the law so as to give immunity to almost all secondary picketing—that is, immunity

from civil action even when secondary picketing induces a breach of contract between parties neither of whom is involved in the industrial dispute. The 1976 Act, which was presented to Parliament under the dubious dual paternity of the Lord President and the Attorney-General, removed the previous vital limitation that immunity from legal action applied only to inducing a breach of contract of employment. The Government have extended the legal immunity to those inducing breaches of any contract, including commercial contracts.
When the 1976 Act was going through the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) warned that it would open the way to a vast extension of blacking and blockading. Workers who have been in no way involved in a dispute, including those in my constituency, have been flung out of work. We are now reaping a fearful harvest of the failure to heed the warnings given from these Benches three years ago. The case for reverting to the pre-1976 law is overwhelming.
Another change in the law introduced by the present Government has had a powerful effect in strengthening the hands of the secondary picket. The threat that anyone who goes through a picket line may have his union card withdrawn is often enough to stop a lorry going through. Where there is a closed shop, the loss of a union card will mean the loss of a man's livelihood. By encouraging and legalising the closed shop, the Larbour Party has done more to make secondary picketing effective than any change in the law of picketing.
That brings me to the closed shop. The founding fathers of the trade union movement, and indeed the founding fathers of the Labour Party, would be appalled to know that nowadays workers are being conscripted into the unions as a precondition of employment instead of joining willingly. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are frogmarched".] The unions should be able to sustain their membership on a voluntary basis and not under coercion.

Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirling-shire): What about the lawyers?

Mr. Gow: I am coming to the lawyers. The legal profession is often criticised as a closed shop. The House knows that


I am a solicitor. My trade union is the Law Society. On 1 January 1979 there were 32,000 solicitors in practice, of whom 25,500 only were members of the Law Society. Thus there are 6,500 solicitors, more than 20 per cent. of the total, who are not members of the trade union. The closed shop is being extended all the time.
With each new closed shop agreement we move nearer to a closed-shop Britain. It is not union bashing to make that assertion. It is the plain truth. In other EEC countries and in the United States the closed shop is either unlawful or damages are available for those who suffer its consequences. We must never argue that we will abandon justice for the minority because the majority is too powerful. Too many liberties have been eroded or are under attack today for the Tory Party to pass by on the other side when a man has been robbed of his employment and stripped of his right to work.
The Prime Minister told the House yesterday that he is at present engaged in discussions with the TUC about the closed shop. I wish I could believe that a code of practice would work or would be permitted to work by the trade unions. The trade unions will never agree to a proper or effective code of practice since they have acquired their increased power largely because of the closed shop.
The law no longer recognises conscientious objection, except on the narow basis of religious belief, as a ground for exemption from trade union membership. That law should be changed along the lines of the recently concluded agreement between the GLC and its 15,000 manual workers. That agreement provides that
an employee shall be exempted from the obligation regarding trade union membership if he or she genuinely objects on grounds of religious belief or personal conviction to being a member of any trade union whatsoever.
The GLC has set a pattern that should be backed up by the protection of Parliament and the law.
It is clear that the Government have decided to make no change either in the law of picketing or about the closed shop. That is hardly surprising given the attitude of the Prime Minister. On page 254 of the autobiography of his noble Friend Lord Wigg, the former Paymaster General, he described the Prime

Minister's attitude to the paymasters of the Labour Party. He wrote:
I remember Callaghan describing to me way back in the '40s his own recipe for political success—wait till the trade unions decide their line and then follow them.
The present Government have neither the courage nor the resolution to introduce these long overdue reforms. It is time that they made way for my right hon. Friends who have that courage.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member rising to oppose?

Mr. Hoyle: I am indeed, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is always giving the game away. He always opposes anything to do with good industrial relations. The present game of the Opposition is to play on the politics of ignorance. They are using scaremongering tactics. This follows their previous appeals on the massive social security frauds and the flood of immigrants. It is now the widespread lawlessness of pickets or the inequities of the closed shop. It is the usual pattern. They are pursuing the politics of mischief-making. They are not interested in good industrial relations or the fact that there are talks between the Government and the TUC and that there is a new concordat on the way. I shall allow them to smile, but nevertheless it is coming. There will be a code of conduct on picketing, but they choose to believe that there is not going to be one because they see party political advantage in doing so. But one opinion poll does not mean that they will win the general election. They might be crowing too soon.
The Opposition are trying to take away the liberties of ordinary people which have existed since 1906. These are liberties that have allowed people in a trade dispute peacefully to persuade others not to work. That is the liberty of the ordinary people that they are trying to take away. It is union bashing of the crudest sort. I am amazed that they never learn their lesson. We shall have successive Ten-Minute Bills devoted to picketing and asking that the proposed law be introduced, despite the fact that the Tory Industrial Relations Act 1971


showed that the law had no place in good industrial relations. They are returning to it because they believe that it is electorally popular and probable that they will get away with it and panic the people of this country. But it will not lead to industrial peace.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: What about the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I gather that these are the hon. Gentleman's reasons for opposing the Bill.

Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman neglected to say that the closed shop is welcomed also by management. A survey of managements in which closed shop operated showed that 75 per cent. saw advantages in it. It leads to better industrial relations and order in the conduct of industial relations.
Conservatives are always talking about the odd exceptions in which people lose their livelihoods. They neglect to tell us that those who lose their livelihood have the right of appeal to the courts, which they always portray as the upholders of justice. What are they complaining about? Also, people who lose their livelihood have a right of appeal to the TUC—to an independent court with a professor of law as the chairman. I do not understand what all the fuss is about. Of course, it is just part of the campaign that the Opposition are building up.
We can all hear the Tories' boots on the cobblestones as they march along, because we all know what they want. They want to weaken the trade union movement in this country. They have not even caught up with current events. They are still talking about secondary picketing, yet in the hospital dispute it is all primary picketing. I have no doubt that we shall have a spate of Bills soon on primary picketing. It is very strange that we never hear a word about picketing when it is ineffective. We have not heard a word from the Tories about Garners' steak houses where workers get disgraceful wages, and where they have been out for 12 months.
I hope that the House will reject this ill-conceived and mischievous Bill.

Mr. Michael Jopling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a custom in this House that when we make speeches we declare our interests. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) holds an extremely important position in a very large trade union. I am not complaining about that, but is it not right that he should declare his interest?

Mr. Hoyle: There is nothing secret about that. If the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) cares to look at the Register of Members' Interests, he will find my position stated there. I have never hesitated to state my interest. In fact, I am very proud of my position.

Mr. Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You rebuked me earlier, Mr. Speaker, and I apologise for speaking from a sedentary position. But it is the convention that points or order should not be raised during Question Time or Ten-Minute Bills. Recently you have made it your practice, with the support of the whole House, to indicate that questions should be related to the questions tabled. In the same way, surely speeches on Ten-Minute Bills should be related to the Bills before the House. It was for that reason. that I raised the matter from a sedentary position.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need for excitement. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) was here to listen to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). If he was, he will know that I allowed a great deal of latitude. I think that we should now move on to the Division and let the House make up its mind.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appeal to the House as someone who has been rebuked by yourself on many occasions. When an hon. Member is rebuked, he should accept it and not argue.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the avoidance of doubt, would you make it clear, following what


was said by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) in extenuation of his failing to declare his interest, that the fact that an interest is registered in the Register of Members' Interests in no way takes away the responsibility of an hon. Member to declare that interest?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon and learned Gentleman is quite correct. To record an interest in the register is not sufficient, but I am in no way rebuking anyone on this matter. I am sure that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was merely casting his bread on the waters.

Mr. Hoyle: I am never afraid of declaring my interest, but if it is right for this side of the House to do so, it is right that Conservative Members should do so, too. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) should have declared that he is the director of a company.

Question put, pursuant to Sanding Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 178.

Division No. 72]
AYES
[4.04 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Page, John (Harrow West)


Arnold, Tom
Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hastings, Stephen
Page, Richard (Workington)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Parkinson, Cecil


Baker, Kenneth
Hawkins, Paul
Pattie, Geoffrey


Banks, Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Penhaligon, David


Berry, Hon Anthony
Heseltine, Michael
Percival, Ian


Biffen, John
Hodgson, Robin
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Blaker, Peter
Holland, Philip
Prior, Rt Hon James


Body, Richard
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Ridsdale, Julian


Britten, Leon
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roberts, (Michael (Cardiff NW)


Brotherton, Michael
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
James, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Buck, Antony
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Bulmer, Esmond
Jessel, Toby
Sainsbury, Tim


Burden, F. A.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jopling, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James


Carlisle, Mark
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kimball, Marcus
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Sims, Roger


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cope, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Cormack, Patrick
Knight, Mrs Jill
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Costain, A. P.
Lamont, Norman
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Critchley, Julian
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Sproat, lain


Crouch, David
Lawson, Nigel
Stainton, Keith


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Le Merchant, Spencer
Stanbrook, Ivor


Drayson, Burnaby
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Stanley, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Dunlop, John
Lloyd, Ian
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Durant, Tony
Luce, Richard
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Macfarlane, Neil
Stokes, John


Elliott, Sir William
MacGregor, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Eyre, Reginald
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Tapsell, Peter


Fairbalrn, Nicholas
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Farr, John
Marten, Neil
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mates, Michael
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mather, Carol
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mawby, Ray
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Forman, Nigel
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Viggers, Peter


Fox, Marcus
Mayhew, Patrick
Wakeham, John


Freud, Clement
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Wall, Patrick


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walters, Dennis


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Moate, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Glyn, Dr Alan
Monro, Hector
Weatherill, Bernard


Goodhart, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus
Wells, John


Goodhew, Victor
Moore. John (Croydon C)
Whitney, Raymond


Grey, Hamish
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wiggin, Jerry


Grieve, Percy
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Winterton, Nicholes


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Younger, Hon George


Grylls, Michael
Mudd, David



Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Nelson, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Newton, Tony
Mr. Nicholas Ridley and


Hannam, John
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Ian Gow.




NOES


Armstrong, Ernest
Ginsburg, David
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Gould, Bryan
Newens, Stanley


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Graham, Ted
Orbach, Maurice


Bates, Alf
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Ovenden, John


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Grant, John (Islington C)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Grocott, Bruce
Palmer, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Park, George


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Hardy, Peter
Parker, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Parry, Robert


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Pavitt, Lourie


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Heffer, Eric S.
Pendry, Tom


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Home Robertson, John
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Buchan, Norman
Howell, Rt Hen Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Radice, Giles


Buchanan, Richard
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Canavan, Dennis
Hunter, Adam
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cant, R. B.
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Rowlands, Ted


Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Greville
Sedgemore, Brian


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Sever, John


Cartwright, John
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Clemitson, Ivor
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
John, Brynmor
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Silverman, Julius


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Skinner, Dennis


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Snape, Peter


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Judd, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Corbett, Robin
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Stallard, A. W.


Cowans, Harry
Kelly, Richard
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kerr, Russel
Stoddart, David


Craigen, Jim(Maryhill)
Kilroy-silk, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Cronin. John
Lamborn, Harry
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lamond, James
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cryer, Bob
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Tierney, Sydney


Davidson, Arthur
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Tinn, James


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Tomlinson, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Litterick, Tom
Urwin, T. W.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Deakins, Eric
Luard, Evan
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Ward, Michael


Dempsey, James
McElhone, Frank
Watkins, David


Dormand, J. D.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Watkinson, John


Dunn, James A.
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Weetch, Ken


Eadie, Alex
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Edge, Geoff
Maclennan, Robert
White, James (Pollok)


Ellis, John (Brig &amp; Scun)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Whitehead, Phillip


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Madden, Max
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Marks, Kenneth
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Evans, John (Newton)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mikardo, Ian
Woodall, Alec


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Woof Robert


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Flannery, Martin
Molloy, William



Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Forrester, John
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Mr. Stan Thorne and


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Morton, George
Mr. Ron Thomas.


George, Bruce
Moyle, Rt Hon Ronald

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ian Gow, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Mr. Patrick Mayhew, Mr. John Cope, Mr. John Biggs-Davison, Mr. Ivor Stanbrook, Mr. Norman Tebbit, Mr. Geoffrey Pattie, Mr. Graham Page, Mr. Antony Buck, Mr. Iain Sproat and Mr. Neil Marten.

WORKERS' FREEDOM

Mr. Ian Gow accordingly presented a Bill to protect the rights of workers by regulating picketing and the closed shop; And the same was read the First time: and orderer to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 February and to be printed. [Bill 70.]

Orders of the Day — NURSES, MIDWIVES AND HEALTH VISITORS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

JOINT COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL AND BOARDS

8.—(1) In this section the expression "Joint Committee" shall mean the Statutory Health Visiting Joint Committee hereinafter referred to.

(2)The Secretary of State shall by order constitute a Joint Committee of the Central Council and the National Boards, to be called the Statutory Health Visiting Joint Committee.

(3)Of the members of the Joint Committee the majority shall be practising Health Visitors.

(4)(A) The Council and each of the Boards shall consult the Joint Committee on all matters relating to health visiting; and the Health Committee shall, on behalf of the Council or of any Board, discharge such of the functions of the Council or the Board as are assigned to it by the body otherwise charged with those functions or by the Secretary of State by order.

(B) Such functions shall include those more particularly specified in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (5) of this section.

(5) The Council and the National Boards shall make provision for the matters relating to Health Visiting set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) of this subsection, upon the recommendation or recommendations to that effect of the Joint Committee but not further or otherwise, namely:—

(a) the education and training of Health Visitors
(b) the further education and training of Health Visitors
(c) the approval of courses for the education and training and further education and training of Health Visitors and of the Institutions providing such courses
(d)the conduct and content of examinations for the qualification of Health Visitors.'.—[Mr. Thorne.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Stan Thorne: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, we may take the following amendments: No. 22, in page 6, line 12, leave out Clause 8.
No. 27, in clause 8, page 6, line 22 at end insert—
such functions may include any or all of those referred to in subsection (4A)(a) to (d) below.'.
No. 28, in clause 8, page 6, line 31, at end insert—
(4A) Neither the Council nor the National Boards shall act on any of the following matters relating to Health Visiting except on a recommendation of the Health Visiting Joint Committee and shall not unreasonably fail to act on a recommendation of the Health Visiting Joint Committee in respect of

(a) the education and training of health visitors;
(b) the further education and training of health visitors;
(c) the approval of courses for the education and training and further education and training of health visitors and of the institutions providing these courses; and
(d) the conduct and content of examinations for the qualification of health visitors.'.

Government amendments Nos. 29 and 30.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that it would also be for the convenience of the House if we took amendment No. 25 with this group.

Dr. Gerard Vaughan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the House is agreeable to the Minister's suggestion, we shall certainly support it.

Mr. Speaker: If the House agrees, we shall also include in this group amendment No. 25, in clause 8, page 6, line 18, leave out from 'visiting' to end of line 22, and insert:
and the Committee shall, on behalf of each of the Boards, discharge the functions of the Boards in relation to health visitors.'.

Mr. Thorne: It is with some regret that we find it necessary to propose the new clause. There were a number of debates in Committee hingeing on some of the matters raised in the new clause and it would have been helpful if the Minister had accepted some of our suggestions.
To some degree, the new clause is the product of the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors following its discussions with the Royal College of Nursing. There is a similarity between


new clause 1(5) and amendment No. 28 and, if they are taken together, I hope that hon. Members will understand their aim.
The Health Visitors Association, which is a trade union, supports the intention behind the new clause, as, I understand, does the Central Midwives Board. Even though there have been discussions at various levels, it has been difficult, if not impossible, to get the complete agreement of all those concerned on the matters raised in the new clause. Nevertheless, there seems to be a substantial area of agreement sufficient, at any rate, to justify the Minister making some new assessment of the position.
The new clause attempts to put right the deficiencies to which I have referred already, resulting from our deliberations in the Standing Committee. Originally, some of us sought unsuccessfully to amend clause 7. Now we have clause 8, which leaves the future education and training of health visitors at the mercy of the main groups of hospital nurses who are trained in hospitals under a totally different system from that which affects health visitors.
On Second Reading, a number of hon. Members pointed out that there were special circumstances attending the education and training of health visitors. Many of them complete courses in polytechnics, institutes of technology, colleges of further education and so on, which embrace social and economic history, sociology and social psychology and which, in an inter-disciplinary context, give them an understanding of the environments in which they are to work. On these courses they benefit from contact with other disciplines involved in the study of communities where a multiplicity of behavioural patterns are to be found.
It is because of the special experiences and activities of health visitors, which have been largely ignored both in the co-ordinating committee referred to in the Briggs report and in the Standing Committee, that pressure has come from health visitors throughout the country for some recognition in the Bill. There can be few hon. Members who have not had letters about the need to recognise the special position of health visitors, even though they represent a minority.
The Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors has attempted to pursue a policy of co-operation with the nurses and midwives. At the same time, it needed some assurance that the future of the education and training of health visitors would be safeguarded as a result of this Bill. At no stage was the CETHV required to give an account of its work, although this material was asked for from the General Nursing Council. No opportunity was given to look at an alternative method of co-operation by means, for example, of a federation, as was suggested by the CETHV.
Many right hon. and hon. Members will recall the Government document "Prevention and Health: Everybody's Business" in which support was given to the important role of hospital visitors. In fact, the emphasis of the document was on preventive medicine. Given the passing of the Bill as it is drafted at present, there is a real danger that more and more resources could be drawn away from the health visitors and absorbed into the curative service.
When we talk about these matters in terms of our present National Health Service, most of us want to see an extension of resources across the board. However, some Opposition hon. Members are perturbed about the public expenditure implications of that, whereas some Government supporters are anxious to oppose cuts in public expenditure in order to protect resources in the National Health Service. Recognising the diminution which has occurred, in our view it is not desirable, with scarce resources, to concentrate them more and more in the curative sector at the expense of those involved in preventive medicine.
Regrettably, the preventive services are not seen as a priority by some of the hierarchy in general nursing, and a minority group such as the health visitors will be unable to prevent the withering away of their role unless their position is eventually written into legislation—hence, the new clause.
In my view, it is necessary for the health visiting joint committee to be seen to be speaking with an authoritative voice in making arrangements with universities and colleges as has been done so happily in the past. It has the right sort of understanding with those institutions, and in my view that should be maintained.


If information and guidance are seen to come from a variety of sources, some informed and some uninformed, it will be impossible to keep up the standards existing in the United Kingdom which stem largely from the activities of the CETHV in co-operation with the educational institutions to which I have referred.
In the setting of standards, advice is not enough. The Royal College of Nursing amendment, which is mirrored in amendment No. 28, goes a long way towards giving a positive indication that the health visiting joint committee should be taken as the authority on health visitor education and training matters. Unhappily, the amendment contains a set of words which can only create problems. Those words are "unreasonably fair". Clearly, the definition of "unreasonably" would finish up in an argument in the courts.

Dr. Vaughan: Probably all of us want to safeguard the position of the health visitors. It is obvious that the hon. Member has given a great deal of thought to this new clause. Is the implication of the clause that the health visitors will function as a completely separate committee and break their relationship with the Central Nursing Council? I am sure that we do not want to undermine the Central Nursing Council to an extent which will undermine the whole Bill.

Mr. Thorne: I am sure that health visitors generally accept the passing away of the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors. They intend to co-operate with the nurses and midwives following the passing of the Bill. However, they are anxious about the prospect of their position becoming eroded unless the protections which we are discussing at the moment are built into the Bill. None of them seeks to say that they should be entirely separate from the main stream of those covered by the Bill. They are anxious to co-operate, but they are rightly determined to protect the CETHV's specialist education and training function.
The CETHV has a sound legislative position. The health visitors would he conceding more than any other group in the interests of co-operation if this Bill were passed, because they are the only group to have established the sort of education and training structure which

the council represents. It is surely no more than common justice that they should be allowed to ensure proper provision for the future for their own education and training.
I hope that the House will seriously consider the points I have made and will give its support to the new clause.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) has done well to make maximum use of the parliamentary procedure to obtain a debate on this crucial central issue that remains outstanding from the Committee stage of the Bill. It concerns the protection of the minority group of health visitors in the new Central Council.
I want to clear up the question of any difference between new clause 1 as it has been tabled by the hon. Member for Preston, South and amendments Nos. 27 and 28, tabled by my hon. Friends and myself. The difference is an important one of emphasis. The difference is not important in relation to the central thrust and purpose behind both the new clause and the amendments. They are designed to ensure that the health visiting profession exerts considerable influence over the treatment of the profession by the Central Council in relation to education and training courses. It is to the credit of that small profession that it should have forced the hon. Member for Preston, South and hon. Members on this side of the House into taking the same view. Few other professions could have achieved that.
Let me get the differences between the new clause and these amendments out of the way. They are not too great. New clause 1, as far as subsection (5), is virtually the same as clause 8 of the Bill. We do not seek to amend the first three subsections of clause 8. Our proposal is perhaps neater and more logical. It makes alterations to clause 8(4) in the same way as new clause 1 makes considerable alterations in clause 8(5).
Our amendments are perhaps stronger. We give negative powers to the health visitors in relation to education and training, whereas the new clause gives more positive powers to the health visitors in restraining the Central Council should


the Council not accept their recommendations over training and education. There is not a great deal of difference between the two approaches. Our amendments were recommended by the Royal College of Nursing, backed by the Health Visitors Association, and were agreed by the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors.
As the drafting was proposed by the Royal College of Nursing, we considered it best to try to stick to the views of the majority profession. There would be less likelihood of individuals in that majority profession saying that we were seeking to undermine the central purpose of the Bill and the setting up of the Central Council by removing too much power from the Council.
Both new clause 1 and our amendments seek to strengthen the position of health visitors in the Bill. We are surprised that the Government have not come forward at this late stage with a similar measure. They must have been aware that members of that profession are nervous about their possible treatment under the Bill. Their fears have been expressed a number of times to hon. Members on the Standing, Committee, to the Minister of State and to the Secretary of State, both in the co-ordinating committee and throughout the progress of the Bill. On Second Reading the Secretary of State stated clearly:
To these and other organisations"—
which includes the health visitors—
who are uncertain of the future, I say that they must seize the opportunity to make their voice heard. They should not let the opportunity pass. No one ever influenced an organisation by refusing to participate in its deliberations."—[Official Report, 13 November 1978; Vol. 958, c. 48.]
This minority has sought to make its views known to the Department. I am therefore surprised that the Government have not come forward at this late stage of the Bill with some amendment to clause 8 to reassure that profession. Why do we regard it as so important that the health visitors should be given this added say over their training and educational courses under the aegis of the Central Council? They are a very small minority. I understand that there are about 10,000 health visitors working at the present time. Some of those are only working part-time

We are therefore talking about a very small number.
There is a substantial difference between the job the health visitors carry out and the work of general nurses and midwives. The hon. Member for Preston, South rightly summarised the primary concern of health visitors as preventive care whereas the others are concerned with curative care and curative medicine. A condition of entry into the health visiting profession is that its members should be qualified SRNs. They must have gone through the whole programme. Health visitors want to play their part with the General Nursing Council in working towards the central purpose of the Bill. That purpose is to establish uniform standards of professional competence for the nursing profession throughout the United Kingdom. There is no quarrel about that aim. The first part of health visitors' training is in general nursing. They want to play their part as equal members of the Council.
It is of course the preventive side of their training about which they are concerned. Having already created for themselves under the Health Visiting and Social Work (Training) Act 1962 their own set of national rules—introduced in 1965 and updated in 1972 with the full approval of the Secretary of State of the day—they want to be sure that those rules are perpetuated by the new body. They have governed their own affairs adequately and effectively for a considerable time and they want the rules under which they have worked to continue. That is natural, and we believe that they should be given that opportunity.
The next reason for strengthening the clause as we have proposed is that the whole emphasis in the country and in the National Health Service is on curative medicine and far less on prevention. The enormous investment of resources in curative medicine—manpower, skill, equipment, buildings and materials—attracts so much attention, as it has to do, from Governments and the public that the relatively small commitment of public resources to prevention never gets anything like the support that it should have.
Giving health visitors more support is of great importance outside the immediate profession, in order to further pre-


ventive medicine generally. In its first report of 1978, the Social Services Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee said, in paragraph 109:
In 1974 the United Kingdom ratio of health visitors to population was 1–5,822. We view this with concern and recommend that strenuous efforts should be made to improve it.
I am sure that the Government and the whole House will agree with that. We need to improve the ratio and give the profession a boost.
The Select Committee on violence in the family, 1976–79, said in paragraph 133:
What is … important … is that there should be an adequate number of health visitors to cover the needs of the community whether old or young.
How important in dealing with violence in the family are the visits of health visitors and their competence and training. We have seen so many sad cases in which insufficient attention has been paid to those unfortunate families.
The House also expresses frequent concern about the high level of infant mortality in this country, which has not improved, alas, as fast as in other countries in recent years. The health visitor has an enormous part to play here. I believe that health visitors take over the matter of advice to and counsel of the families when a baby reaches the age of 10 days. That is a crucial period, according to the evidence, in potential infant mortality. The House should be most concerned that this profession gets the greatest possible support for its desire to have some control of the specialised training of its members.
4.45 p.m.
Another important aspect of the profession's work has been mentioned this very week in the House in a powerful appeal by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) about vaccine damage. It would be better to reduce the number of children or adults damaged by inoculations than pay compensation after the event. That is an obvious comment, but it was put very well by the hon. Member. The health visitors have a great responsibility for inoculations, particularly of children, against whooping cough and other disease.
When the health visitors see that the Central Council and the national boards

will be overwhelmingly in the hands of those who are involved in curative medicine, they are naturally concerned. Only a small minority will be involved in prevention. The members of this profession do not see that health visitor training can be better done under the Bill than it was when they had a much smaller body without statutory powers. When we ask them to join the Council, we must ensure that their voices are heard.
The argument against giving the health visitors powers over their own education and training—of which the Central Council would have to take note—was made in Committee and by the Minister. It is that there is a danger that the fundamental principle of the Bill would be breached if by law such recommendations on training were made obligatory on the Council and the boards.
We have had representations from the Scottish Royal College of Nursing that it is concerned about independence. It does not want to be bound by obligations to a central joint committee of health visitors. Nevertheless, we do not believe that the new clause and the amendments will undermine the Central Council as the recognised authority with overall control of the registration, education and training of all the professions concerned by allowing one of the minority constituent bodies this extra safeguard over training and education and the allocation of expenditure. Expenditure is much in the hands of the large battalions whose members are interested in and dedicated to curative medicine. We want to be sure that the small minority that is dedicated to preventive medicine receives a fair share.
We believe it essential that the marriage between health visitors and the General Nursing Council should not be a shotgun affair. As the Bill stands, I believe that that tends to be the nature of the marriage. If the Bill is not amended in one of the ways that has been proposed, there could be considerable bitterness among members of the minority profession. That would be a tragedy for the future of preventive medicine.
I hope that the House will give serious consideration to voting in favour of the new clause. If the new clause falls, I hope that the House will support the amendments.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: The Bill is one of the most paradoxical of those that I have had the privilege of considering in Committee. The debate on the new clause and amendments illustrates the position in which we found ourselves throughout consideration of the Bill in Committee. There is a wider measure of agreement among all political parties on the purposes of the Bill than there has been on any Bill with which I have been connected. There is a wider measure of agreement among the various sectors within the various parties than I have known previously. There is a wider measure of agreement among the many organisations forming the Briggs co-ordinating committee that has been informing hon. Members on these matters than is usual when a number of organisations come together. However, we are having to try to find solutions all the time to satisfy those who will be involved in the ends that we are trying to serve by the means that we are putting into the Bill.
I agree with practically every word that the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) said about the problem that we face. I differ with him in only one respect. The hon. Gentleman hazarded the thought that, unless we solve the problem, the health visitors will remain outside the structure that we propose to establish and their education would be superior in that event than if they became a part of it. The health visitors have had a solid background of knowledge and experience since 1962 and as an integral part of the new machinery they have a part to play for not only their members but for the Central Council and the boards. It is to be a structure that will be of mutual benefit. It will not consist merely of individual sectors. We are seeking to safeguard the best elements.
On Second Reading I made a pledge to the health visitors that in Committee I should seek to safeguard what I felt were their real fears. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne), I tabled amendments that were debated in Committee. The fears of the health visitors are real. The health visitors have a body of experience behind them based on practical application in circumstances different from those that obtain in hospitals. They are

naturally scared to lose that background. The purpose of the new clause is precisely to preserve that entity, individuality and, if I may say so, personality as part of the broad spectrum that we are discussing.
On Report it is the job of the House to resolve the fears of the health visitors. If the Bill goes on to the statute book without their fears being satisfactorily resolved, that will be bad for the whole of the nursing profession and not merely for the health visitors. However, we face problems when we come to consider the new clause. The last few sentences of my hon. Friend's drafting could have the effect mentioned by the hon. Member for Wells. It is difficult to envisage how paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (5) could be put into operation without damaging to some extent the unified structure that the Bill is all about. That may be a defect of wording rather than intention. It should be put right, and I believe that it can be put right.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South and I moved and, on agreement, withdrew two separate amendments on the assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that at some stage he would meet the arguments that we were advancing. His assurance was qualified. He said that it should be possible for him to be able to meet the fears of health visitors and those of other sectors if the various organisations and sectors were themselves able to reach agreement. I pay tribute to the way in which over the Christmas Recess the various organisations and sectors got together immediately to seek to resolve their differences. I think especially of Mr. David Rye of the Royal College and Catherine Hall and Miss Norma Batley of the health visitors. There have been regular meetings ever since.
My right hon. Friend's problem is that he has to satisfy not only the 300,000 nurses of the Royal College and the health visitors but about 12 separate organisations and 12 separate pressure groups, including three important trade unions. I do not have to declare an interest because I am not a sponsored Member. I am a member of NUPE and proud of it, in spite of all the newspaper headlines that try to give the impression that Alan Fisher is the devil incarnate, He is one of the most gentle persons I


have ever met. NUPE, COHSE and NALGO have grave reservations. The district nurses have made representations, as have the psychiatric nurses. In discussing the new clause we must bear in mind the repercussions elsewhere.
If we can find the right solutions, which are very much contained in the new clause, with a satisfactory agreement on the basis of a compromise reached by the various organisations, and if we use the time that will be available to us before the Bill returns from another place to formulate and offer the right sort of assurances so that we may establish the right structure and provide the guarantees that are required by those who will be involved in the education system envisaged by the Briggs report, we shall be taking a great step forward for the whole of the nursing profession, both internally in the hospitals and outside. If we do that successfully, and successfully hold back the smaller claims that might arise, and give the health visitors the assurances that they require and the necessary safeguards, retaining the main structure that is set out in the Briggs report, the House will have acted properly and correctly.
I shall be listening with more than usual interest to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I believe that it is possible to achieve a solution. We have not reached an impasse where we are about to start pulling everything apart. I believe that, with the co-operation of the Department and the outside bodies, we shall be able to adopt a unifying approach that will give the Central Council and the national boards the right start. In that way we shall avoid a start being made against a background of acrimony and dissidence. If that can be achieved today —in my view it is the crux of the debate —we shall have done well.

5 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I agree with hon. Members on both sides on the intention behind the new clause. I did not have the pleasure of going through the Bill in Committee. However, it is obvious that in Committee there grew up unanimity on the need for giving health visitors the security which they require and for which they ask. I intervene as I have received representations from my constituents. As this Bill concerns nurses, midwives and health visitors, the Minister should turn over backwards,

if necessary, to ensure that they are treated fairly, so that they accept the final position in the statute.
In these days it is unusual to find agreement on both sides. I have been in the House for a good few years. On those occasions when there is near-unanimity, it is difficult for a Minister to reject the ideas advanced from both sides and extremely dangerous for him so to do.
Cogent arguments have been advanced from both sides in favour of giving health visitors the power that they require. There are comparatively few health visitors. There are but 10,000 of them. They are all highly trained people. They play an important part in the National Health Service. If not, they would have been ignored and not provided for under the Bill. They are a highly professional body. Their training has been standardised throughout the United Kingdom since 1962. They are highly efficient, well organised and well disciplined. They play an important part in the care of those in need.
Here is an occasion when the differences between the two sides of the House are marginal. The intention is clear. Perhaps the Government foresaw that there would be this agreement and that possibly a new clause might be moved by Government supporters. The Government will have been left in no doubt that the Opposition wish to amend clause 7 to ensure that the health visitors are given the protection for which they asked.
There may be problems in the drafting of new clause 1 from the Government side, and perhaps some problems created by amendment No. 28, which was proposed by the Royal College of Nursing. There may be difficulty in accepting either the new clause or the amendments as they stand. But the Government will be unwise—I have no doubt that the new clause will be pressed strongly from both sides—if they do not say that they are fully seized of the desires and intentions of the House and give an undertaking that, before the Bill goes to another place, they will insert a clause to put into effect the wishes of the House as expressed this afternoon.

Mr. John Ovenden: I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). This is


probably the strangest event that has occurred in Kent for a long time. The House is in unanimity on this occasion. Although I prefer more controversy and excitement, perhaps today's mood on this issue is more constructive.
I want to hear what the Minister says in reply to the strong case that was put to him today. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) on tabling the new clause and on the fight that he put up in Committee on behalf of health visitors. I was not a member of that Standing Committee. However, I followed the debates from afar and read the records of them. I do not read closely the reports of Committee debates on all our legislation. Like most hon. Members, I was approached and received representations from health visitors about their views upon the Bill, which prompted me, along with many other hon. Members, to take a much closer interest in what happened in the Committee than perhaps might otherwise have been the case.
The health visitors expressed to me their fears about what control and influence they would have over training and education within their profession if the Bill went through unamended. They have a fear that they would be outvoted and overwhelmed by the larger numbers in the professions with which they are now in liaison. We must take those fears seriously. I was impressed by the case they put to me for the safeguards that are necessary to protect their position, their explanations of what their job is about and how different they are from the other professions within the Central Council and the national boards.
Health visitors play a valuable and unique role in our health services. Their role is mainly in the area of preventive rather than curative medicine. That is true to a great extent although I find that the line between those two is not as clear cut as some people pretend. The job they do is different in many other ways. They work in different environments, with people in their own homes, in a situation which requires co-operation between the health visitor and the patient. That is a different atmosphere from that in which the hospital nurse works. Without wishing to be unkind to those who work in hospitals, I must say the atmos-

phere in hospital is basically authoritarian. It is an authoritarian regime. However, when we take away a person's clothes and put him in a hospital bed, he has not much choice about whether to do what he is told. The people with whom health visitors deal have a different attitude. They can choose whether to do as they are told.
Recently I was told a story by one of my constituency health visitors, who some weeks ago was accompanied on her rounds by a hospital nurse. The health visitor spent a long period trying to persuade a mother with young children exactly what she should do to protect and improve the health of the family. This took a great deal of persuasion. When they left, the hospital nurse said "Why did you waste all that time? Why did you not tell her what to do?" This illustrates the difference between the attitudes of the two professions.
We are dealing with people who work in an atmosphere of voluntary cooperation, among deprived sections of our community. Those people are not just nurses but have a range of other skills. They are also social workers. That sets them slightly apart from the other people within the nursing profession. I admit that the basic training is the same. That is why we need co-operation and a joint body to oversee the general training. We must recognise the differences in the rôle, training and education necessary for the health visitor to do her job. As the health visitors have a special role they feel that they need to retain control over decisions affecting their profession.
I welcome the concessions made by the Minister. We are pleased at the action taken in Committee to make sure that there is a majority of practising health visitors on the health visiting joint committee. The health visitors very much appreciated that gesture.
I also welcome the commitment in the Bill to allow the health visiting joint committee to exercise certain functions of the Central Council and of the national boards which are delegated to it either by those bodies or by the Secretary of State. That goes a long way towards restoring the rights of health visitors—who will have a majority on the joint committee —to exercise proper control over education and training within their profession.
What clause 8 does not spell out is precisely what those functions will be. It does not contain any commitment that any function at all will be delegated to the joint committee. This is what my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South is seeking to correct in the clause. He makes it quite clear that the national boards and the Central Council will have the power to act only within certain spheres affecting training and education and the further education of health visitors, and will have power to act in those spheres only on the recommendations of the joint committee. That makes the relationship just about right. It maintains the centralised structure, but it ensures that that centralised structure cannot overrule the very special and unique interest of this very small profession.
I realise the problems that my right hon. Friend the Minister has had with the Bill and how difficult it is to try to resolve the conflicting interests and the conflicting views of a large number of bodies. He has had to deal with a very large number of bodies. But politics is often about that sort of thing. If we could leave it to others to decide among themselves precisely what they wanted and just come to us to rubber-stamp it, there would be little need for our existence. It is very often the case that the conflicting interests cannot agree among themselves and Parliament has to make a decision.
Although I should like to see this matter resolved purely by agreement, if that cannot be done it would be an abdication of our responsibility for us to run away from it. We must look at the case on its merits. Whatever the difficulties of reconciling the different groups, the health visitors have an unanswerable case for the sort of treatment that is spelt out in the new clause. We should stand by them in that fight.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I should like to know from the Minister how important the Government believe health visitors to be. Any health visitors who may be listening to the debate today will be having one of their best days ever, for Member after Member has said how much we value health visitors and how important it is for them to maintain their standards. I agree with everything that has been said in that respect but point out that, although 10,000 seems to

be quite a large number, it works out at only 15 health visitors per constituency. As has been pointed out, some of those health visitors are not working full-time.
What, therefore, is the Government's attitude towards health visitors? Are they regarded as being a vital and important part of the National Health Service? Would the Government—provided there is the money—like to see their function expanded? Or is the fact that, after Second Reading and our deliberations in Committee, the Government have come up with no solution whatever to the dilemma an indication that in reality they do not value the health visitors very highly? If that is the Government's view, they will have some difficulty—judging by the mood of the House this afternoon—in getting the measure through.
I draw attention to amendment No. 25, in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. I could vote for that or for any other amendments, quite frankly, as they would all do a great deal to allay the anxieties of the health visitors and a great deal to protect them against the fears they have expressed. These fears are by no means unjustified.
I am by training an engineer. That is a long way from being a health visitor, but I am well aware of what has happened in engineering to the skilled craftsmen's unions over the years as they have been absorbed by the larger numbers of non-skilled people. The analogy with the health visitors is not precise, but it is relevant to the extent that the majority will is overwhelmed. The original concept of some of the craft unions has been pushed to one side by the majority of the membership. That is exactly the sort of fear that the health visitors have and are expressing. They are also worried that they will be pushed into a large sea of numbers in which their own number is seen to be rather small. They fear that their interests will be pushed to one side because of their sheer lack of numbers.
5.15 p.m.
I do not accuse the health visitors and their centralised committee of trying—as is sometimes the case in other professions—to preserve particular professional standards. There is sometimes in some professions an inclination to push standards up and up, for no apparent reason other than to justify the existence


of the profession concerned. Although that tendency is evident in many professions, I do not think that the health visitors can be accused of it. They seem to have evolved for themselves a reasonable and sensible standard of education that is specific to the profession to which they apply themselves and reasonable in general. If this House were to do anything today to make that development falter or to make it less effective than it is now, it would be extremely foolish.
What, then, is the Government's view of health visitors? Why has the Minister not been able to produce a compromise? My hon. Friends and I will be prepared tonight to vote for any of the amendments on the Amendment Paper because we believe that any of them would be an improvement on the existing position.

Mr. George Rodgers: I did not serve on the Standing Committee. Therefore, I have not the same detailed knowledge as my colleagues who have examined the legislative proposals in considerable detail. The House will be gratified to know that my contribution will, accordingly, be restricted.
My interest has been aroused—as has that of many hon. Members—because concerned constituents have contacted me about it. It is to the credit of the organisations and individuals involved that they have conducted a campaign which has made many Members aware of problems that many of us had not appreciated. I understand that every Member of the House has been approached and is now aware of the enormous interest, concern and anxiety provoked by the Bill. It is true that many of the anticipated problems have, happily, been resolved by consent and by compromise. Even so, certain aspects continue to cause grave disquiet.
It is right that particular attention should be directed towards the education and training of health visitors and that this should extend to the conduct and content of examinations for the qualifications of health visitors. I believe that the new clause recognises this overwhelming requirement of precise legislation to meet the need for training in the future. It largely embraces the views of the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors and the Royal College of

Nursing. It also supports the approach of the panel of assessors of the Central Midwifery Board. It is surely essential that the high standards—

Mr. Robin Hodgson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will be aware that the new clause, as drafted, excludes the possibility of there subsequently being other joint committees of the Council and boards. If the new clause is passed in its present form, other minority professions, such as the district nurses, will be excluded and will consequently feel even more aggrieved about their position within the new framework of the nursing profession. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.

Mr. Rodgers: I do not deny the fact that many organisations would feel aggrieved if the new clause were put into effect. It may be—I accept this entirely—that the Minister will have to review the broad position in order to accommodate the provisions of the new clause, but that is quite feasible and quite within the capacity of the Minister.
I believe that the essential high standards which have already been established must be maintained in the future. The new clause points to one of the ways in which this objective can be attained. The case for delegated powers being allocated to the joint committee in the area of training and education is fairly obvious. I believe that it can be accommodated by the acceptance of the new clause, even if there has to be some subsequent rethinking, variation and modification.
I believe that it is of prime importance that the House should demonstrate that it is prepared to listen to the guidance given by those who have a deep knowledge of the service. I think that we should be prepared not merely to listen but to act on this advice, particularly when the issues are of such wide-ranging importance and have a direct effect on the lives of so many people.
When I looked at the reports of the Committee proceedings, I observed, with some alarm, that the Minister of State made reference, when examining clause 8, to the fact—some of us think a melancholy fact—that we are now members of the Common Market. He remarked on the


impact that this would have on training and education in a number of professions, including nursing, and added that we must take these considerations into account. As one who does not assume that we shall remain in the Common Market in perpetuity and who also thinks that in the meantime we should concentrate our minds on reforming that body—preferably out of existence—I hope that the Minister will not be unduly swayed by these Common Market considerations. Rather than adapting our standards of training and education to EEC levels, we should insist that our Common Market partners adjust their standards to our own, which are very high indeed.
I do not pretend that the Common Market aspect is a major issue in this debate, but it certainly was a point raised by the Minister. I have been very much impressed by the accord throughout this Chamber and the desire to remedy that particular defect. I appreciate that the purpose and motive behind the Bill are sound and that it has general support. But I give my wholehearted support to clause 8, which I think reaches to the essence of the problem. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer some token of that acceptance.

Mr. Alec Woodall: I read at the weekend that speeches in this Chamber were getting longer and more boring. I cannot guarantee that I shall not be boring, but I can say that I shall be brief and to the point.
Last weekend I had the pleasure of meeting health visitors in my area. A more professional and dedicated body of people I have never met, and I pay tribute to their professionalism. However, they are very concerned about that professionalism. One of them said, with the utmost sincerity, that she had been trained to be a nurse, as all health visitors had to be trained. Their training for health visiting—a much more complex affair—is undertaken not in a hospital environment but in a university or a polytechnic. She said that not until she had completed her training as a health visitor did she think that she was a complete person. Those are sincere but dramatic words.
Health visitors are concerned that, within this Bill, the specialised training which they have received up to now,

through the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors, is to be abandoned after only 17 years. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will agree that a marvellous job has been done in training health visitors to date. But—this is the crux of the matter—the health visitors emphasise that their training is different from that of nurses because it is given within the professional atmosphere of universities and polytechnics. No matter what my right hon. Friend may say about his intentions for the unification of training for nurses, midwives and health visitors, the health visitors fear that under this Bill there will be a diminution of their professionalism.
Without going into the matter any further, because the point has already been made by many hon. Members, my plea to my right hon. Friend is to think again before pushing this Bill through, because the health visitors are very disturbed. They wish to carry on giving to people their specialised advice and treatment which is different from medical and nursing advice. I ask my right hon. Friend to think again and to take into consideration the views of this very professional and dedicated body.

Mr. William Molloy: I ask the House to acknowledge that the one great thing that has come out of this debate is that the Government need not fear further criticism of public expenditure from the Conservative or Liberal Parties when we try to improve the National Health Service. That is one of the most gratifying remarks I have heard in this House for very many years, and I welcome it.
This has been a very useful debate. In Committee, when we examined these proposals—bearing in mind that they were based on the Briggs recommendations—we eliminated many of the points that might have become difficult to reconcile. That does credit to all, including myself, who served on that Committee.
We should recognise that many of the organisations which contributed to Briggs have, over the last 30 years, made massive contributions to improving the status, training, salaries and wage scales of those dedicated men and women who work in the National Health Service. We should also recognise the representations and contributions which have been made by


trade union organisations to improve our health services. It is proper that, having paid due acknowledgment to the Health Visitors Association, we should acknowledge that, long before Briggs or this debate, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, with which I am associated, and the National Union of Public Employees made valuable contributions to the betterment of the National Health Service.
As I see it, the problem which my right hon. Friend must try to resolve is that the Bill should not cause conflict or apprehension in any sector of the Health Service—whether it be State registered nurses, State certified midwives or psychiatric nurses—which believes that it is a special case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) said that when one went into hospital one simply had to do as one was told. I suggest that in psychiatric nursing the last thing many patients do is what they are told. Psychiatric nursing is a very difficult job. It requires as much patience, expertise and a desire to help as is needed in any other sector of the National Health Service. One of the most poignant features of our Health Service is the work being done by psychiatric nurses.
5.30 p.m.
I want to make certain that we find in this House today, if we possibly can—it ought not to be beyond our endeavour—a reform which will not exacerbate the conflict but will, instead, achieve better understanding. We can do that only if we include words which will not necessarily mean that Health Service visitors have to make massive public endeavour to draw to our attention what they consider to be their apprehensions. If one acknowledges that, it must follow that there is something in the Bill which is not perfect but which, perhaps, we can make perfect.
At the same time, we must beware of being too rash in attempting to meet all the points of one sector and, by so doing, sowing the seed of discontent amongst members of NUPE, the psychiatric nurses and all other sectors of the Health Service. That is very important, and I ask my right hon. Friend to understand and consider it. I wish that I could give him

some advice about how to do it. I would help if I could.
What might seem an impossible task frequently proves to be the opposite. One of the beauties of our democratic process—though we are laughed at for it—is that we talk and talk, as we did in Committee on this Bill, and sometimes, after hours of talking, suddenly we hit on a solution. This is what one does not find in authoritarian regimes. The law is firmly laid down. We argue, and we debate. Occasionally we are on the verge of losing our tempers and are savagely criticised for that. Every other organisation could debate for hours and weeks without getting excited, but not we in this House, sent here on the votes of hundreds of thousands of ordinary people.
I regret that on a number of occasions I was not able to be present in Committee—for a very good reason; I was out of the country—but I believe that the Committee had most useful and intelligent debates on various subjects. Many Members of both major parties found, at one time, that they were not in full agreement with either Front Bench. That was remarkable.
I ask my right hon. Friend to try to reach a decision via discussion and examination with health visitors as a vital element—which I acknowledge they most certainly are—and with COHSE, NUPE and NALGO. That should not be impossible. Surely we can find a formula—perhaps we ought to have done it before—which will remove the apprehensions of health visitors. In finding that formula, not only will we get the approval of the Health Visitors Association but the result produced will also receive the applause of all other organisations in the National Health Service.

Mr. John Wells: All I wish to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that I have had more sensible letters on this topic than I have had from my entire constituency in almost 20 years as a Member of this House

Mr. Tom Litterick: In deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), I shall try not to get excited.
The reason why I rise to speak on behalf of the new clause is that the Bill,


which was originally conceived to set up a rather monolithic structure to control education and training for the nursing professions, has been significantly amended already in respect of midwives. In the case of midwives, the principle has been conceded that there are significant subsections of the profession which can be sensibly distinguished from one another in terms of their functions, the activities involved and the skills required by the various people who carry out those sub-professions of the general nursing profession.
The Bill makes that very clear. Clause 4(4) states:
The Secretary of State shall not approve rules relating to midwifery practice unless satisfied that they are framed in accordance with recommendations of the Council's Midwifery Committee.
In other words, clause 4(4) ensures that midwives will be mistresses of their own house. I think that that must have given great satisfaction to midwives when it emerged from Committee.
When we come to health visitors, we discover, in clause 8, that no such autonomy, no such authority, is allowed to them.
It is our contention—and, I think, that of many hon. Members on both sides of the House—that the activities, functions and required skills of health visitors are so easily distinguishable from those of midwives and from those of what, for want of a better term, we might call general nurses—though that begs many questions—that they should also be constituted separately for this purpose and be, if not wholly autonomous, as autonomous as the midwives.
Having said that, I must say to Opposition Members that I prefer the wording of the new clause to their wording in amendment No. 28. I do not think that this is simply a matter of playing with words. I draw their attention to the provision that
on a recommendation of the Health Visiting Joint Committee and shall not unreasonably fail to act on a recommendation of the Health Visiting Joint Committee".
That is in respect of the national boards. The national boards
shall not unreasonably fail to act on a recommendation of the Health Visiting Joint Committee.

With respect to Opposition hon. Members, that, quite clearly, leaves ultimate residual power in the Central Council in a way which does not happen with midwives. I cannot see the logic in conceding that degree of autonomy to midwives but not to health visitors. If the reason for arguing for either new clause 1 or, indeed, amendment No. 28—

Dr. Vaughan: It might be helpful to the hon. Gentleman if I tell him that it is not our wording, but wording which was agreed between the Royal College of Nursing and the health visitors. It was only afterwards that the health visitors began to have doubts.

Mr. Litterick: I am most grateful for that intervention. However, I must say that the Royal College of Nursing is mistaken. It has introduced an inconsistency. The principle that we must adopt in logic if we are seeking to amend the Bill in a way about which, in essence, I believe we all agree is precisely the principle that has been explicated in clause 4(4) in relation to midwives. I cannot see any sense in doing otherwise.
With respect to the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan), amendment No. 28 would not do that, because it explicitly leaves a residual power in the hands of the Central Council. Therefore, it would detract from the autonomy of the health visiting joint committee. I prefer the wording of new clause 1 because it says that the national boards, and the Council itself, shall make recommendations, provisions, and so forth, on matters of education and training with respect to health visitors only upon the recommendation made by the health visiting joint committee, but not further or otherwise. I think that that makes it very clear.
Having said that, I shall refer to what I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) said, which is that having conceded the principle once—in fact, and I think that we are about to do so for a second time this evening—there is no sensible reason why we should not anticipate that this will not happen again. We know that there are arguments, if not tensions, within the nursing profession about various groups of nurses, who have a particular set of special skills and a particular type of working experience, and who argue, and will continue to


do so—and probably in the future with greater force—that they are as distinguishable from the general body of nurses as are the midwives and, as I think we are agreeing tonight, the health visitors.
We can expect a further proliferation of committees such as those that we are looking at in the context of new clause 1. I do not see that we should be worried about this in any way. I believe that it is an inevitable consequence of the growth of the profession and its growing sophistication that people will become more specialised and therefore will want to distinguish parts of training and education for the different specialisms.
So far in this debate we have talked of three groups of people whose basic training is now generally agreed to be in general nursing. However, we do not know whether that will continue to be the case among all the various groups that are subsumed within the general word "nurse" into the indefinite future. I suspect that with some of the sub-groups the position will change within a few years and that nursing will cease to be the basic relevant training for such people. Therefore, I see no reason why we should be anxious that the Bill will lead to a proliferation of committees and subcommittees. That would be only a logical institutional response to the development of the profession.
In common with other hon. Members, I have received representations from the health visitors and I have been impressed by the quality of their arguments. The Minister should beware of being over-impressed by numbers. It is true that there are many nurses—350,000, I am told—and a large number of midwives, totalling 40,000, I understand. Therefore, there are relatively only a small number of health visitors. Although 350,000 nurses may have a loud voice, that does not necessarily signify the quality or cogency of their arguments. The only criteria we can use in deciding whether subgroups should have the kind of autonomy that is already conferred on midwives are the character of their activities, their function and the nature of the skills which they have to acquire to carry out those functions. If they are significantly distinguishable from other groups within the

nursing profession, it is logical and justifiable for the House to create a separate autonomous institution to govern the training and education of that group.

Mr. John Cronin: I am a Member sponsored by the Confederation of Health Service Employees. Indeed, I am chairman of the group of sponsored Members, and some of what I say may reflect their views. However, what chiefly moves me to speak today is my admiration for this excellent Bill and my concern that its effect should not be impaired. Having practised as a consultant surgeon for 30 years, I am not entirely ignorant of the issues involved. Therefore I wish to apply myself to the argument to ensure that the Bill retains its excellence.
I was impressed by the importance attributed to health visitors by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) in his excellent speech moving the new clause. Furthermore, the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) paid a powerful tribute to the health visitors. They are fairly important people and their work is particularly useful.
At the same time, we must bear in mind that our most important purpose here is to see that the nursing profession is controlled by a completely authoritative organisation. The clause and the amendments taken with it go against the whole concept of the original Briggs report, namely, the concept of unity. If we make special arrangements for special sections of the nursing profession, we shall be perpetuating the old system under a different name.
The hon. Member for Wells stressed that health visitors are most concerned with preventive medicine. I agree that that is very much in their favour, but I do not see why that aspect of their work should be so important that they must have separate representation. We must remember that there are only 10,000 health visitors, and this, surely, is a question of the tail wagging the dog.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Boscawen: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the tail is wagging the dog, but it will wag the dog only in a narrow respect specific to the health visitor. It will not wag the dog in relation to the


rest of the general nursing profession involving midwifery and the other minorities.

Mr. Cronin: The same argument could be applied to any other section of the nursing profession. When the Briggs committee met to discuss this matter, very little support was given to the idea of according health visitors special treatment. Therefore, I am surprised that that suggestion should arise now. The Briggs committee agreed to bury differences and to work together. Now these differences appear to be re-emerging to the detriment of the Bill. If this special treatment is given to health visitors, it will discriminate against other sections of nurses such as district nurses, psychiatric nurses, occupational health nurses and other groups of nurses who could equally demand the same treatment.
Many hon. Members have referred to the fears of the health visitors. Nobody has said what those fears are. What are they afraid of?

Mr. Thorne: I thought that my hon. Friend listened to my speech. Their fears are based on the prospect that the education and training which they now receive in certain types of institution will in time be so eroded that they end up by getting a form of education in hospitals away from the environment on which they have built over a long period of time and which gives them the specialist training about which we have been talking.

Mr. Cronin: I assure my hon. Friend that I listened to his remarks most carefully and I took that point, but I cannot see why the nurses have these fears about their future. It is no compliment to the future Central Council if we in this House feel that that body will not be sufficiently well established to understand the importance of education.

Dr. Alan Glyn: The point is that there is a genuine fear among health visitors that their own views may be overridden in two or three years' time and that their system of education may be altered by the Central Council. That is the basis of their concern.

Mr. Cronin: My suggestion is that those fears are unjustified. I do not see why the Bill should be radically changed

because of the fears of a relatively small group.
Some other members of the nursing profession have an equal entitlement to special consideration. Let us consider the case of mental nurses in mental hospitals, who have great responsibilities quite different from those in general nursing. They have onerous decisions and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1959. They have the responsibility for taking away the freedom of patients, giving treatments that are not accepted by some patients and restraining patients physically. These responsibilities are unique. If a small group such as the health visitors are given special treatment, why should the mental nurses not have the same treatment?

Mr. Burden: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but he might like to retract his remark that we should not pay too much attention to the requirements of a small group. They are the people whom Parliament should always take great care to protect.

Mr. Cronin: If any difficulty arises, they are fully protected under clause 3(3). The Minister has powers to take steps to see that they are protected. There is no need for these fears.

Mr. Litterick: In the last few minutes my hon. Friend has frequently used the word "responsibility", which indicates that he is confusing responsibility with skill. We are talking of skills and the necessary training for skills. Responsibility is quite different.

Mr. Cronin: Responsibility in the nursing and medical professions involves a high degree of skill. They go together.

Mr. Litterick: One does not go on a course to learn responsibility.

Mr. Cronin: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept from me that consultant surgeons are responsible people because they have the skill to accept the responsibility. I cannot accept his argument that skill and responsibility are altogether separate.
The Confederation of Health Service Employees accepted the Bill because it involved unification of the profession, which it thought desirable. COHSE represents 230,000 Health Service employees. Even in these troubled times we should pay attention to the unions


involved. COHSE is not happy about the new clause and the amendments. It accepted the special treatment of midwives. Some people believe that the Minister's acceptance of the amendments that led to the midwifery committee did not help the Bill. It is asking a lot of a trade union which has accepted with some misgivings one amendment to accept a further proposal that puts a large number of its members at a relative disadvantage.
The Bill is excellent. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I pay tribute to the splendid work that it did. As a result, we have an excellent Bill that will transform the nursing profession. I hope that no amendment will be accepted which will disfigure the excellence of this most satisfactory Bill.

Mr. Moyle: We have had a lengthy and interesting debate. The Bill not only surveys the problems of the nursing profession, the National Health Service and the internal politics of the nursing profession but, as I was reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers), reveals the problems of British membership of the Common Market, devolution, Government policy on Northern Ireland, the British constitution and parliamentary practice. In spite of these multifarious problems, we had a good Committee stage. Most of the problems have been resolved in an acceptable way, apart from the remaining problem that we are faced with this afternoon.
I associate myself with all the statements of principle that have been made in the debate on both sides of the House. I was asked by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) and others what the Government's attitude was to health visitors. We believe that prevention must be treated as being of paramount importance in the development of the Health Service. I was pleased to see that the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) supports that view. So that even in the untoward event of a change of Government the policy developing prevention will continue with enthusiasm.
Essential to that policy is a good health visiting service, and the Government are committed to developing that. The Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors has blazed a trail in the

organisation of the training of health professionals. In its relatively short existence it has adopted a businesslike approach and provided an excellent system. Not only has that system been good, but when the Bill is on the statute book the system will continue to be good. There will be modifications as conditions change, but it will essentially remain unchanged.
We are faced with three proposals. My hon. Friend's new clause 1 and the Opposition's amendments Nos. 27 and 28 suffer from technical defects which should give the House pause before putting them into the Bill. They are substantial technical defects.
Turning to new clause 1, amendment No. 22 removes existing clause 8 in order to substitute the new clause. Clause 8 (4) says:
The Secretary of State may by order constitute other joint committees"—
that is, other than the joint health visiting committee. In Committee I said that if the district nurses would like a joint committee they could come to me and I would institute it. Hon. Members have a group of amendments down that would make legal provision for that.
If I accept my hon. Friend's new clause 1, that removes from me any opportunity to povide a joint committee for district nurses, psychiatric nurses, mental nurses, occupational nurses and midwives. That is a massive obstacle to my accepting new clause 1, and also to the House accepting it, even those hon. Members who would like to see for the health visitors a more developed solution than there is at present in the Bill.
Opposition amendments Nos. 27 and 28 have developed a solution which tries to recognise that under the Bill there must be overall control by the Central Council as well as a substantial responsibility for the education and training of health visitors by the health visiting joint committee. The technique that has been recommended by the Royal College of Nursing and the Health Visitors Association is to say that in any disagreement between the Central Council and the health visiting joint committee, the Central Council
shall not unreasonably fail to act on a recommendation of the Health Visiting Joint Committee.


6 p.m.
What is reasonable, what is unreasonable, and who decides? We have a definition of a reasonable man by one of our learned judges who said many years ago that the reasonable man was the man on the Clapham omnibus. But it is sinister in this context if, to find out what is reasonable, I have to quote a judge. The moment one puts the term "reasonable" into a statute, one is flagging to all and sundry that a correct solution to the problem will have to be sought through the courts.
If we accept amendments Nos. 27 and 28 as they are, even if we agree with the principle, we envisage the possibility that relations between an overall Central Council and one of its committees will have to be decided upon in courts of law. We are suggesting that there will be litigation to settle the boundary between two bodies which are supposed to be closely related. Therefore, I could not accept the burden of the amendments, even if I agreed with the principle.
However, the Opposition have been moving in the right direction, because their two amendments have some measure of agreement on the Briggs co-ordinating committee. The Royal College of Nursing, the Health Visitors Association, the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors, the panel of assessors and the Joint Board for Clinical Nursing Studies have agreed to the amendments going forward. That is an advance. On the other hand, the Royal College of Midwives, the General Nursing Council of England and Wales, the General Nursing Council of Scotland, the Central Midwives Board for England and Wales, the Central Midwives Board for Scotland, the regional nursing officers who speak for NHS nursing management, the Clinical Nursing Studies Committee for Scotland, the Association of Nursing Administrators, the Northern Ireland Council which encompasses all those bodies for Northern Ireland, the National Union of Public Employees, the National and Local Government Officers Association and the Confederation of Health Service Employees all believe that this is not a proper solution. Therefore, the bodies that support the amendments must get the wording changed if they want them to go forward. They must remove this

concept of "reasonableness", and they must persuade their colleagues.

Mr. Roderick Macfarquhar: Is my right hon. Friend saying that the objection by that long list of bodies is to the one word "reasonable", or are there other objections?

Mr. Moyle: There are other objections, and I am coming to them now. From the drafting point of view, and from the point of view of trying to administer the Act, the insertion of the concept of reasonableness is a severe blow to the wording of amendment No. 28.
The trouble is that both amendments destroy the overall control by the Central Council of the education and training of health visitors. It is an essential element of the whole of the Bill that, despite the fact that we make arrangements for minorities, there should be eventual control, as far as the profession is concerned, in the Council. Several hon. Members have recognised that there is this tension in our efforts to solve the problem.
If we cannot get agreement, it will be difficult. If we can, everything becomes possible. But both amendments involve the handing over of all responsibility for the education and training of health visitors to the health visiting joint committee, except in so far as this dangerous element of reasonableness comes into them.
If a move is made to remove the total control of health visitors' education and training from the Central Council to some standing committee and it is blessed by this House, we shall land ourselves in difficulty. There are various groups that we are trying to bring together—midwives, health visitors, district nurses, psychiatric nurses, occupational nurses and general nurses. The general approach has been that all of them must pool their particular interests and give up something in order to get this precious concept of unity. The moment one group breaks ranks, all the others will wish to follow. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) made a particularly passionate indication of the sort of case that one might get with psychiatric nurses if this occurred in respect of health visitors. If the psychiatric and mental nurses can agree on the sort of solution that we might apply to the health visitors, we can all go forward together.
The health visitors have a tremendous self-interest in associating themselves with the general nursing profession because they make use of general nursing training at the initial stage. Therefore, they have a tremendous interest in making sure that general nurse training develops along lines that will be useful to them. Health visitors also must have some knowledge of obstetrics. Therefore they also have an interest in midwifery training. It is important that health visitors should stay in with the general nursing profession on terms that will allow them to influence the general nursing and midwifery training. At the same time, they must not cut themselves off completely from their own health visiting training.
What is the position of health visitors as a result of the amendments and modifications made in Committee? I recognise that they are still suffering from a sense of unease. They are worried, and I am prepared to continue to look at the problems. We have Government amendments Nos. 5 and 16 on the Amendment Paper, which I hope that the House will adopt. Those amendments lay a legal obligation on the Central Council and the joint boards to have regard to minority interests in their administration of the profession. That writes in a legal obligation for the protection of health visitors, district nurses, midwives and other similar bodies.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I appreciate that the unease of health visitors is at the core of the problem. If we listen to the other objections which my right hon. Friend put and do not build in proper safeguards, this unease will be reinforced. My right hon. Friend said that the insertion of "reasonable" is very difficult because one cannot say what is reasonable. By the same token, what is "proper", which appears in his amendment?

Mr. Moyle: I do not have an amendment to the clause.

Mr. Hughes: My right hon. Friend mentioned amendment No. 5 and said that in the discharge of functions "proper regard" shall be had. What is proper regard?

Mr. Moyle: That is a point, but this is a new development which lays a burden

on the various bodies to have regard to the proper professional interests of the minorities covered here. This is just the first, and by no means the most important, of the defences that health visitors will have under the Bill. We have made sure that there will be a health visiting joint committee of the Central Council. All matters relating to health visitors will be referred to that committee by the Central Council.
I believe that once a health visiting joint committee is set up it will be inconceivable for the Central Council to proceed on a matter relating to health visitors without first referring it to the committee. However, if by some mischance it proceeded without reference to the committee, there are other protections for health visitors. For example, the majority on that health visiting joint committee will be practising health visitors, who will be able to make recommendations to the Central Council. I believe that in 99 cases out of 100 the Central Council will accept the recommendations of the committee.
It was made clear in Committee that the Central Council will be able to operate, once it has decided what to do, only by seeking the authority of a statutory instrument of the House. Therefore, the Central Council will have to draft a statutory instrument and put it before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services for his agreement. It is said that at some time in the future there might be a Secretary of State who will not bother to ask the Central Council whether the health visiting joint committee had considered the matter before it was put to him. I believe that to be highly unlikely. No Secretary of State would lay those rules before the House for debate and approval in the face of opposition from the health visiting joint committee. However, if he did, the order would still have to be laid before the House for debate.
Some relatively caustic remarks were made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne). He said that provisions relating to statutory committees, particularly if they were subject to the negative procedure, were often laid before the House and never seen. In this case, I do not believe that to be possible. After all, the scenario that we are setting is one


where the health visiting joint committee is outraged because it feels that the Central Council has not observed its wishes on the training and education of health visitors. After what has occurred in the past two months, no hon. Member could believe that that situation would slip by unnoticed. Shoals of letters have been descending upon us in recent weeks. They would be reinforced—and doubled in many cases—rather than die off if the Central Council ignored the joint committee. The consequent debate and vote upon the rules would provide more protection for health visitors.

Mr. Ovenden: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the problems of the negative procedure is that, despite the feelings of hon. Members who may be annoyed about the issue, it is up to the Government to provide time for a debate? Will my right hon. Friend cast his mind back to the arguments raised over the past two months about non-contributory invalidity pension, when prayers were tabled but the Government refused to allow time for a debate?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Moyle: In a contentious case involving health visitors, I do not believe that the Government would refuse to allow time for a debate. The House agrees that if the wishes of health visitors about their education and training are not met, a contentious issue evolves. Therefore, there is no prospect of the matter sliding by. I have demonstrated that even if there are no further amendments to the Bill, other than amendments Nos. 5 and 16, substantial protection still exists for health visitors.
However, in spite of all the protection, there is still a sense of unease. Following the extensive discussions of the Briggs co-ordinating committee, the Government felt that clause 7 of the original Bill—the present clause 8—was as satisfactory as could be achieved. We believed that it would provide an adequate safeguard for the health visitors and would not undermine the Central Council. However, it is clear from representations that many hon. Members have received that some sections of the health professions are still unhappy.
We accept that the training of health visitors is specialised. I undertake that if the various groups involved come for-

ward with a better agreed solution the Government will write it into the Bill in another place. That is further than I have gone before. With that assurance, I ask hon. Members not to press for any change in the principles of clause 8 at this stage.

Dr. Vaughan: I am grateful to the Minister for that important concession. I believe that it will go a long way towards settling the anxieties of health visitors. However, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in Committee the amendments to the former clause 7 were withdrawn on the understanding that the clause would be improved?

Mr. Moyle: I shall certainly bear that in mind. It does not detract from the undertaking that I have given. If anything, it strengthens it.

Mr. Pavitt: The Government have made an important concession. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is not seeking to achieve 100 per cent. agreement of all the organisations concerned, and that if he gets maximum agreement the concession will be written into the Bill?

Mr. Moyle: I am not sure what my hon. Friend means by "maximum agreement". However, I am not seeking a 100 per cent. consensus.
I turn now to amendments Nos. 29 and 30. I have accepted, in principle, the idea that the majority of members on the health visiting joint committee should be persons with experience in the profession. I raised a query concerning the wording of the amendments proposed in Committee, and amendments Nos. 29 and 30 include the wording that my legal advisers regard as appropriate to apply the concept. I hope that the House will accept the amendments.

Mr. Thorne: On the basis of the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

CONSTITUTION OF CENTRAL COUNCIL

Mr. Hodgson: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 14, leave out "nominated" and insert "elected".
This matter was debated in Committee and I shall therefore be brief. The clause deals with the constitution of the Central Council—the new top company set up as a result of the Briggs recommendation. The Briggs report recommended, and the Bill embodies, a two-tier structure comprising a series of national boards, one each for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, covered by the Central Council.
The Bill allows the election of a member of the nursing profession to the national boards, but allows only nomination from the national boards to the Central Council. My hon. Friends and I feel that this is less satisfactory than a scheme of election from each national board.
With the passage of time, a national board may become set in its ways and there may be a clique of people on it who may become concerned with the perpetuation of their own viewpoint and interests. In that case, it may be difficult for the national board to send to the Central Council a nominee who does not accept the conventional wisdom circulating on the board. Therefore, we believe that a form of wording that demands the word "election" would make it more difficult for such a self-perpetuating clique to be formed. It is hoped that such a provision will not be necessary and that the national boards will remain open to outside influences and be flexible in their approach and thinking. However, we know that that is not always the case and we propose the amendment to guard against that danger.
When I moved a similar amendment in Committee, the Minister said:
The hon. Member for Walsall, North used the word 'elect'. We have used the word 'nominate'. I would suggest that, in practice, both words mean the same, because the process by which the national board decides on who will serve in a representative capacity on the Central Council from the national board will, I am sure, be done by a process of election, if necessary, by the national board."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 28 November 1978; c. 30.]
The critical words are "I am sure" and "if necessary". The Minister cannot be sure. He means that he hopes that that will be done, but hope is not enough and we need to be certain that the national boards will continue to use a scheme of

elections for sending representatives to the Central Council.

Mr. Moyle: We considered this matter in Committee and I said that I thought that both words meant the same in practice but that since the hon. Gentleman had expressed his concern I would consult the Briggs co-ordinating committee to see whether its members felt that there was a virtue in changing the words.
A majority of members argued for no change and, as that reinforced my prejudice, I had little difficulty in agreeing with them. I therefore ask the House not to adopt the amendment.

Mr. Hodgson: In the light of what the Minister has said and the consultation that he had with the co-ordinating committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 7 at end insert—
(4A) The Secretary of State shall have especially in mind the need to secure that qualifications and experience in the teaching of nurses, midwives and health visitors are adequately represented on the Council.".
The aim of the amendment is to ensure that there is a proper representation of teachers of nursing, midwifery and health visiting on the Central Council and the national boards. I was pressed in Committee, particularly by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), to accept such a provision and I am advised that the wording of the amendment will put the principle into operation.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am obliged to the Minister for having adopted the suggestion which other Members and I made in Committee and for having thrown it into a form which is clearly more appropriate than that in which it was debated in Committee.
The amendment gives me the opportunity to make an observation. In Committee, I used a number of expressions that I regarded as common coin among hon. Members in regard to parliamentary draftsmen and the well-known fact that, however carefully hon. Members draft their amendments, they never satisfy the parliamentary draftsmen or Ministers.
I am sure that all hon. Members who indulge in that sort of well-worn humour realise that an amendment that may seem perfectly satisfactory as they have drawn it has to be looked at in a wider light to make sure that it does not incur any difficulties in other parts of the Bill. I hope that those who assist us by the drafting of Bills and amendments do not mistake the natural merriment which hon. Members indulge in from time to time at the expense of the parliamentary draftsmen as evidence of ingratitude.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

FUNCTIONS OF COUNCIL

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): The next amendment to be considered is No. 4.

Dr. Vaughan: rose—

Mr. Moyle: It may save the time of the House if I say in respect of amendment No. 4, which I presume the hon. Member for Reading. South (Dr. Vaughan) moved formally when he rose, that I am prepared to get an amendment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are working far too swifty. I wish that we could solve the health visitors' difficulties as speedily as the House is trying to solve the Chair's difficulties.. Is the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) moving anything?

Dr. Vaughan: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 27 at end insert—
'(3A) The Council shall by means of rules provide guidance for the member of the nursing, midwifery and health visiting profession on standards of professional conduct.'.

Mr. Moyle: I apologise for moving with undue haste. If the hon. Member for Reading, South will withdraw his amendment, I am prepared to move an amendment at a later stage to make crystal clear that the Central Council will have power to make rules for the guidance of the profession if it wishes.

Dr. Vaughan: I sometimes complain that the Minister has acted too slowly. In this case he seems to have taken my advice but is acting so fast that we can barely keep up with him.
In view of what the Minister said, I shall not make the speech that I intended to make. It would have been brief, though not as brief as the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells). We are glad that the Minister has appreciated the arguments put in Committee, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 30, at end insert—
'(5) In the discharge of its functions the Council shall have proper regard for the interests of all groups within the professions, including those with minority representation.'.
I have already explained the purpose of the amendment and will not go over it again. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) was concerned that I had criticised the reasonableness test in another context and he thought that I regarded the word "proper" as meaning the same as "reasonable" in the context of the amendment. That is true. I have no objection in principle to the reasonableness test and the possibility that a matter may go to court. I was objecting to the possibility of relations between the Council and one of its committees being subject to court action.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

STANDING COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL

Mr. Hodgson: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 3, leave out line 1.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments No. 21, in clause 8, page 6, line 12, leave out 'a joint committee' and insert 'as joint committees'.
No. 23, in clause 8, page 6 line 14. leave out
'the Health Visiting Joint Committee'
and insert
'a Health Visiting Joint Committee and a District Nursing Joint Committee'.
No. 24, in clause 8, page 6, line 17, at end insert 'respective'.
No. 26, in clause 8, page 6, line 18, after 'visiting', insert 'and district nursing'.

Mr. Hodgson: Amendment No. 6 is a paving amendment which will excise the district nursing standing committee from the standing committees of the Central Council and substitute a district nursing joint committee which will parallel that set up for health visitors in clause 8.
This matter was debated in Committee and we argued that the Briggs committee referred to district nurses as being on a par with health visitors and district midwives in their importance in the community and that these basic field workers had an extremely important role.
We feel that the role of the district nurse has been neglected in the Bill. The demographic projections for the next quarter of a century show an enormous increase in the number of elderly and very elderly and will mean an increased burden on the community care services in which district nurses play such an important part. The district nursing service provides a flexible form of care which is suitable for town, country and suburb in a way that perhaps other sections of the nursing profession can match.
The Minister accepted in Committee the importance of setting up a joint committee and said that he intended to set up a district nursing standing committee by statutory instrument as soon as possible. We are delighted to hear that, but I wonder whether it would not be more useful and clearer if the reference to district nursing standing committee were removed.
Health visiting is not covered in that section of the Bill. It has a joint committee, a national board and a general council. District nursing will immediately get off as a sort of half-and-half child, with a reference in clause 3(3)(c). Following the Minister's statutory instrument, the provisions of clause 8 will also, I presume, apply to district nursing. This seems to be illogical and to lead possibly to unnecessary complication and duplication.
We dealt with this matter in Committee. I have to tell the Minister that, on re-reading his arguments, I do not find them entirely convincing. We appear to have higher and lower levels of representation. In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier, it may be that he will be able to see his way clear to clari-

fying and codifying the positon of district nurses.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Moyle: I am only too happy to associate myself with the extremely nice remarks by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) about district nurses. The House would expect me to do so at this juncture because district nurses are as important to the development of a proper preventive health service as health visitors. The development of health visitors and district nurses goes forward together from that point of view, although obviously there are differences in their training, their professional preparation and their roles. They are essential people. There are not enough district nurses, just as there are not enough health visitors. I hope that they will increase in number and play an increasing role in the preventive health care service.
In my view, the district nurses will have a far more flexible form of standing committee to look after their interests than the midwives and health visitors. The principal reason why the midwives and health visitors have their form of committee is entirely historic. The district nurses have been prepared to settle for one set up by statutory instrument which can be modified.
When this matter was debated in Committee, I undertook that if the representatives of the profession came to me with agreed proposals on whether there should be a joint committee for district nurses as opposed to an ordinary standing committee, I should consider them carefully and sympathetically. The panel of assessors for district nursing has pressed for the express provision of a joint committee to be written into the Bill, and the Royal College of Nursing has pledged its support. Apart from that, at present there seems to be no general desire that there should be a joint standing committee for district nurses. Therefore, I counsel the House not to write this into the law. There is nothing to stop a joint committee for district nurses being set up if the majority feeling in the profession moves in that direction. But I do not wish to be compelled to do so.

Mr. Hodgson: In the light of the continuing consultation going on about


clause 8 involving the health visitors, can the Minister assure the House that he will be prepared to consider representations from the district nurses in that set of involved discussions which must continue? Will he undertake that the district nurses can and will be included in those discussions, so that if the need is felt for a standing committee the necessary amendment can be made in the other place?

Mr. Moyle: I am quite prepared to give that undertaking—in respect not only of the district nurses but of the other interested parties in this whole exercise.

Dr. Vaughan: I was glad to hear what the Minister said. He gave an important undertaking.
I wish to associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) about district nursing. In that connection, I congratulate the Government on not seeking to alter the amendment made in Committee, which was to take out occupational health nursing as a special group. We felt that it was important that it should have a special section, and I am glad that the Government now agree.

Mr. Hodgson: In the light of the assurance given by the Minister and the fact that the consultations are continuing, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in line 5, after first 'Council', insert—'(a)'.
This again is an amendment designed to ensure that members of the appropriate committees have practical experience. It meets an undertaking which I gave in Committee. The amendment which had been moved at that stage did not meet the wishes of the parliamentary draftsman. This present wording does that. I hope that it gives full expression to the wishes of the Committee.

Dr. Vaughan: I am glad that the Government have accepted the views of the Committee. The parliamentary draftsman has improved on the wording that we considered in Committee. The Opposition are very pleased to support this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in line 6, at end insert:
'and
(b) shall provide for a majority on the committee to be persons who work or have worked in the professional field with which it is primarily concerned'.
The same consideration applies here as applied to amendment No. 7. I doubt whether hon. Members will wish me to expound further.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

THE MIDWIFERY COMMITTEE

Mr. Hodgson: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in line 8, at end, insert:
'and there shall also be two members of the general public at least one of whom must be a woman'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take amendment No. 17, in clause 7, page 5, line 34, after first 'committee', insert:
'(which shall include two members of the general public one of whom must be a woman)'.

Mr. Hodgson: These two amendments concern the general interest of the Opposition to ensure that the public are adequately represented on the individual boards which are to be set up following the recommendation of the Briggs committee.
In Committee, we considered the place of the general public on the Central Council. Government amendments Nos. 12 and 13, to which we shall be coming in a moment, concern the representation of the general public on the national boards. This amendment concerns the representation of the general public on the midwifery committees, both the central midwifery committee and the midwifery committee of each of the national boards. These two amendments are different from those which we considered in Committee in that, instead of concerning ourselves merely with two members of the general public, we specify here that one must be a woman.
The reason why we want to include one woman is fairly obvious. Women have a special interest in the operations of a midwifery committee. But one further argument worth making concerns the pressure from the medical profession and possibly from the DHHS for women


to have their children in hospital rather than at home.
A measure of unease about this proposal was circulating fairly widely amongst hon. Members who served on the Committee. Certain sections of the midwifery profession feel that the powers-that-be, as they see it, are putting unnecessary pressure on women to have all their children in hospital rather than at home, bearing in mind that certain European countries — Holland especially — has adopted the reverse policy with very satisfactory results from the point of view of natal mortality and natal care.
The sections of the midwifery profession which are concerned about this feel that the representation of the general public, especially by one woman who is from outside the profession, on each of the committees will have a balancing effect and will ensure that more general views can at least be heard, understood and argued about on the midwifery committees.
I move this amendment, therefore, for two reasons. The first is that we are discussing the general public, and this is a Bill concerned with the nursing profession which seeks to serve the general public. In view of that, the interest of the general public and the consumer interest must be represented properly.
Secondly, a woman from outside the nursing and medical profession, perhaps an ordinary housewife, would bring a new dimension and a new perspective to the deliberations of the midwifery committee. For those reasons, I ask the House to accept the amendment.

Mr. Powell: I hope that the Minister will not smile upon this amendment, at any rate in its present form, because of the intolerable obscurity, in this context, of the concept of "a member of the general public".
I invite the House to recall the constitution of the Central Council of which the midwifery committee is to be a committee. Clause 1 (3) (a) sets out that the majority shall be members of the national boards, nominated or elected in a particular way, with the remainder appointed by the Secretary of State from among persons described in clause 1(4). It appears to me that none of those persons constituting the Council under clause

1 is a member of the general public in any natural sense of the term.
There are two views of the meaning of this expression. We are all members of the general public when we are not doing our own thing. The most highly qualified consultant surgeon is sometimes only too obviously a member of the general public immediately he ceases to practise as a consultant surgeon. In one sense, all the members of the Council, except in one particular aspect, are members of the general public. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) wants to interrupt.

Mr. Hodgson: I accept the point of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) about clause 1. He will understand that we have tabled an amendment. I hope I have made clear that it is not in the Bill as presently constituted. We have sought to move an amendment to it.

Mr. Powell: Even if it is intended that these persons who are to be members of the midwifery committee are not to be members of the Council, of which it is a committee, which may have been vaguely hinted at by the word "also" in the amendment, there still remains the difficulty, which I was in the middle of dissecting, of this concept of "member of the general public".
One alternative—I shall endeavour not to repeat myself—is anybody when he is not in his professional capacity. The alternative is "a layman" or "a laywoman", that is to say, a person who has none of the qualifications for being a member of the Council or of the national boards, which are set out in different parts of the Bill. Clearly, if the amendment were interpreted in that light, the first meaning would be nugatory. If we take the second meaning, I cannot believe that it is a good idea for us to place on the midwifery committee persons who have no qualifications or experience in education, medicine or other fields which would be of value in the performance of its functions. Surely, under the second category of meaning, they are not members of the general public.
We therefore appear to be asking that the Secretary of State should ensure that there are people on the midwifery committee who have no possible reason for


being there except that they have no reason for being there. That does not seem a satisfactory method for afforcing the committee. Unless the Minister can discover more meaning in the amendment than I have been able to do, I hope he will not give it a fair wind.

Mr. Pavitt: I understood the argument of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), but I also understand clearly what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) is seeking to achieve. He is seeking some participation by the customers in the Health Service. We are setting up an educational body.
I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman's intentions would serve a useful purpose. He is reaching for an objective that many of us would like to see in other sectors of the Health Service. We would like some participation by patients. The description by the right hon. Member for Down, South of "the general public" applies equally to the patients. We are patients at some time in our lives. For most of the time, we are not. It is a weakness of the Health Service that there is no meaningful participation by people at the receiving end of the Service.
I should be prepared to support the contention of the hon. Member for Walsall, North in other sectors of the Health Service, but I can see no way in which practical expression can be given to the principle he is putting forward in this amendment.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Moyle: We ran over the course of this amendment and its principles in Committee. I reassure the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that I agree wholeheartedly with all the strictures he has passed on the phrase "general public". He spoke of "intolerable obscurity" about the phrase. I heartily agree with him.
There are other technical defects in the amendment. As my hon. Friend for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) said, this is an attempt to get some consumer representation into the midwifery committee. The essence of consumer representation would be a woman on the committee who was a mother. The amendment does not specify that the woman should be a mother. It is vague in that respect.
I also pointed out in Committee that, given the make-up of the midwifery profession, it was highly unlikely at this stage that the midwifery committee would be devoid of women and devoid of women who were mothers. I would have thought it almost inevitable that at least one member of the committee would have experienced childbirth, even on the most random process of selection.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) was confusing matters a little. He seemed to think that the Central Council would be part of the Health Service. The body will contain people who are involved in the Health Service, but it will not be part of the Service. It will not be concerned with the provision of health services. It will be concerned with the control of an important profession.
The question whether babies are delivered in hospital or at home—a very important question—is not a matter that this body can settle. The whole argument about whether babies should be delivered at home or in hospital is almost totally irrelevant to the matters we are now considering in this Bill. It is a matter of departmental and Health Service policy. We try to encourage mothers to have their babies in hospital because of the full range of back-up services if things go wrong. If, despite all the best advice that we tender mothers, they still want to have babies at home, we will make provision for that. But this is not a matter for the Central Council or for the midwifery committee to consider. It is a matter for the Health Service and for Ministers. If members of the public quarrel with the policy, their quarrel is with the Secretary of State and myself and the medical profession, and not with the Central Council and the midwives.

Mr. Hodgson: I find the Minister's remarks less than persuasive. Clause 4 deals with midwifery practice. There is no doubt that his Department will receive representations from the Central Council and the midwifery committee about midwifery practice in the broadest sense. People who wish to contribute to the way midwifery practice is carried out will do a great deal better if they proceed through the midwifery committee rather than write directly to the Minister, because the established profession will be behind them.
The amendment is therefore concerned with giving other views fair exposure in the councils of the DHSS. It is a question not of involvement in the Department but of putting pressure on it. The Minister says that it is unlikely that the committee will exclude mothers and

members of the general public. I accept that, but there is no certainty. Therefore, I press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 149, Noes 121.

Division No.73]
AYES
[6.50 p.m.


Arnold, Tom
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Overden, John


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Awdry, Daniel
Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Richard (Workington)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hannam, John
Penhaligon, David


Banks, Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Beith, A. J.
Hayhoe, Barney
Raison, Timothy


Bell, Ronald
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Reid, George


Bendall, Vivian
Hicks, Robert
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hodgson, Robin
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Biffen, John
Holland, Philip
Rhodes James, R.


Blaker, Peter
Hooson, Emlyn
Ridsdale, Julian


Body, Richard
Howell, David (Guildford)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brotherton, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sainsbury, Tim


Buck, Antony
Hurd, Douglas
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Bulmer, Esmond
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Burden, F. A.
Jessel, Toby
Shepherd, Colin


Canavan, Dennis
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sims, Roger


Carlisle, Mark
Kimball, Marcus
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Channon, Paul
Knight, Mrs Jill
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Sproat, Iain


Clegg, Walter
Lawrence, Ivan
Stainton, Keith


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Lawson, Nigel
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Litterick, Tom
Stewart, lan (Hitchin)


Cope, John
Lloyd, Ian
Stradling Thomas, J.


Corbett, Robin
Luce, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Costain, A. P.
Macfarlane, Neil
Temple-Morris, Peter


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
MacGregor, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Dykes, Hugh
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Elliott, Sir William
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, George


Emery, Peter
Marten, Neil
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mather, Carol
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mawby, Ray
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Farr, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Viggers, Peter


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Flannery, Martin
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Walters, Dennis


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mills, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Weatherill, Bernard


Fookes, Miss Janet
Montgomery, Fergus
Welsh, Andrew


Freud, Clement
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wigley, Dafydd


Goodhart, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Gorst, John
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Younger, Hon George


Grey, Hamish
Neubert, Michael



Griffiths, Eldon
Newton, Tony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Nott, John
Sir George Young and


Grist, Ian
Onslow, Cranley
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.




NOES


Armstrong, Ernest
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Eadie, Alex


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Cowans, Harry
Edge, Geoff


Bates, Alf
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Craigen, Jim(Maryhill)
Evans, John (Newton)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cronin, John
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cryer, Bob
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whlteh)
Forrester, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Boardman, H.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
George, Bruce


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Deakins, Eric
Ginsburg, David


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Golding, John


Buchanan, Richard
Dempsey, James
Gould, Bryan


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Doig, Peter
Gourlay, Harry


Cartwright, John
Dormand, J. D.
Graham, Ted


Clemitson, Ivor
Dunn, James A.
Hardy, Peter




Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Madden, Max
Silkln, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Heffer, Eric S.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Silverman, Julius


Home Robertson, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Skinner, Dennis


Horam, John
Mikardo, Ian
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Spriggs, Leslie


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Molloy, William
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Stoddart, David


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Morton, George
Strang, Gavin


Janner, Greville
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Newens, Stanley
Tierney, Sydney


John, Brynmor
Oakes, Gordon
Urwin, T. W.


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Ogden, Eric
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Palmer, Arthur
Watkinson, John


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parker, John
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Judd, Frank
Parry, Robert
White, James (Pollok)


Kerr, Russell
Pavitt, Laurie
Whitlock, William


Lamond, James
Phipps, Dr Colin
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Radice, Giles
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Woof Robert


McElhone, Frank
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Young, David (Bolton E)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Roderick, Caerwyn



McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. James Hamilton and


Maclennan, Robert
Sever, John
Mr. James Tinn.


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Question accordingly agreed to.

7 p.m.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 10 in page 3, line 14, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
'(3) The Council shall assign to the Committee any matter involving a proposal to make, amend or revoke rules under section 15 (regulation of midwifery practice); and—

(a) the Committee shall consider the proposal and report on it to the Council;
(b) the Council shall take no action on the report until they have consulted the National Boards with respect to the matters dealt with in it.'.

The amendment has been tabled to clarify new clause 1 as it applies to the midwifery committee. At the same time, I shall refer to Government amendment No. 18. The orginal new clause 1 that was considered in Committee—it is now clause 4—referred to the assignment to the midwifery committee of midwifery practice. I assumed that it would be generally understood that midwifery practice referred to the rules of midwifery practice that are now mentioned in clause 15. The hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) said that that was not clear in the wording that we had adopted.
The object of the amendment is to make it crystal clear that when we talk about the assignment of midwifery practice to the midwifery committee we are talking about the midwifery practice rules in clause 15. The amendment is designed to meet the arguments of the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that the House will give it its support.

Dr. Vaughan: I am glad that the Minister, having considered the argument put to him in Committee, came to the conclusion that it was necessary to make some changes. We support the words that are before us. When we discussed the matter with the Royal College of Nursing to seek the view of the nursing profession, it felt that the wording was satisfactory.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 4 leave out "30" and insert "35".
In Committee we discussed the number that should compose the Northern Ireland national board. We discussed whether it should be increased from 30 to 35. I undertook to consult the Northern Ireland profession to ascertain what it thought to be the best number. It has said that it would prefer 35. Therefore, we are writing that into the Bill.

Dr. Vaughan: This is a much more important change than appears from the brief wording in the amendment. It will give much more flexibility to the working of the board and in enabling those concerned to represent the different professional groups in Northern Ireland. Whenever we discuss Northern Ireland and the importance of the Northern Ireland nursing groups, we must remember that some of their numbers are small. At the beginning of our deliberations in Committee we spent some time considering whether they would be able adequately to fill all the committees and to


undertake the responsibilities that the Bill would require of them. We are pleased that the Minister has accepted the argument and has increased the number.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

CONSTITUTION OF NATIONAL BOARDS

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 4, line 8 leave out from "day" to end of line 12.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 13.

Mr. Moyle: The House has already accepted the principle contained in the amendment, which is to ensure the proper representation of teachers of nursing, midwifery and health visiting on the Central Council and national boards. I hope that the House will accept the amendment.

Mr. Hodgson: I am surprised at the brief way in which the Minister skipped through the amendments. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 contain something considerably more significant than the right hon. Gentleman suggested in the few words that he addressed to the House. The first part of the amendment excises the second part of subsection (3) of clause 5 and puts the excision into subsection (5). That is significant, because in so doing lines 30 and 31 are omitted, and they say:
but must include at least two members of the general public.
In shuffling the subsections the Minister has managed to omit a critical phrase. It is critical because it was inserted in Committee following a Division and because we have recently divided the House on the same principle. We are dealing with national boards and the public interest. The House has made its wishes extremely clear following a Division, but within five minutes the Minister is suggesting two amendments which involve the same principle and not bothering to explain to the House that he is omitting

lines 30 and 31. I consider that to be misleading.
Unless someone had followed the Bill with a great deal of care—we all know that it is complex—it would not have been clear that the two lines were to be omitted. The House divided only recently on the principle that it wishes to see public representation on the committees of the new Council at both central and national level. The Minister was wrong not to have given a fuller explanation. When he replies to the debate, the least he can do is to say that in the light of the recent Division he is prepared to withdraw the amendment and to reconsider his position.

Mr. Moyle: These amendments were put down because of an undertaking that I gave in Committee. The House approved the principle set out in amendment No. 3. The Committee voted on the proposition that two members of the general public should be appointed to the midwifery committee, one of whom should be a woman. That provision of one woman constituted the most important part of the amendment. I do not see that there is any call to withdraw these amendments and rephrase them. I shall give thought to the decision which the Committee reached on the vote between now and the later stages of the Bill. However, I give no commitment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 4, line 25, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
'(5) In the case of each Board—

(a) the majority of those appointed under subsection (3) shall be persons who are nurses midwives or health visitors; and
(b) the Secretary of State's direct appointments under subsection (4)(a) shall be made from among persons who either—

(i) are nurses, midwives or health visitors, or
(ii) have such qualifications and experience in education, medicine or other fields as, in his opinion, will be of value to the Board in the performance of its functions.

(5A) The Secretary of State shall have especially in mind the need to secure that qualifications and experience in the teaching of nurses, midwives and health visitors are adequately represented on each Board.'.—[[Mr. Moyle.]

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 5, leave out lines 5 to 7 and insert:
'means a day appointed by the Secretary of State by order, which must be not more than three years from the coming into force of this section.'.
This amendment has been tabled to meet a point that was raised in Committee. There was a general feeling in Committee that the term of office of the first members of the national boards should be strictly limited to three years rather than a period from three to five years, which I think we originally put forward. The amendment that was accepted talked about a term of three years from the commencement of the Act. That was regarded as a slightly vague phrase. We are now talking about three years from
a day appointed by the Secretary of State by order, which must not be more than three years from the coming into force of this section
which is a more precise way of expressing what the Committee wished to do.

Dr. Vaughan: We think that this is an important point. We strongly support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

FUNCTIONS OF BOARDS

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 5, line 26, leave out 'carrying out preliminary' and insert 'carry out'.
The purpose of the amendment is clarification. It deals with the disciplinary proceedings of all the joint boards and the Central Council. In the original Bill we used words to the effect that preliminary investigation would be at the national board level. That implied that there would be further investigation at Central Council level. We did not intend that there should be a second investigation at Central Council level. We intended that all investigations of the facts should be at national board level and that the Central Council should confine itself to determining whether there had been misconduct on the facts ascertained by the board. As the reference to preliminary investigation did not exactly describe that situation, we are amending it to remove the word "preliminary" from the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 5, line 31, at end insert:
'and shall have proper regard for the interests of all groups within the professions, including those with minority representation'.
The House accepted the principle in this amendment when it accepted amendment No. 5.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

STANDING COMMITTEES OF BOARDS

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 5, line 41, at end insert—
(3A) In particular the Board, when consulted by the Central Council with respect to matters dealt with in a report of the latter's Midwifery Committee, shall seek the views of its own Midwifery Committee on those matters.".
The amendment is proposed to clarify the midwifery clause. There had been an intention to allow the midwifery committee of the Central Council to consult direct with the midwifery committees of the four national boards. We now understand from the nursing professions that they feel it is better for the consultation chain to run from the standing midwifery committee of the Central Council to the Central Council, from there to the national boards and on to the standing midwifery committees of the national boards. That is the wish of the profession. There is no element of principle in it. It is merely a reordering of the consultative procedures.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 6, line 10, after "Board", insert "(a)".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 20.

Mr. Moyle: In Committee I accepted in principle the idea that the majority of the members of the standing joint committee should be persons of experience of the professional field with which the committee was concerned. The proposed amendment at that stage, however, was defective as it used the term "specialty" which might in certain cases be open to misinterpretation or too narrow a construction. We tabled these amendments to remove that ambiguity. As the House


has already accepted the principle in amendments Nos. 7 and 8, and 29 and 30, I hope that it will accept this amendment.

Mr. Hodgson: The Minister gave an undertaking in Committee. We are glad that he put his commitment in formal parliamentary language. We are happy to see the amendment made.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 6, line 11, at end insert—
and
(b) shall provide for a majority on the committee to be persons who work or have worked in the professional field with which it is primarily concerned".—[Mr. Moyle.]

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause 8

JOINT COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL AND BOARDS

Amendment proposed: No. 25, in page 6, line 18, leave out from "visiting" to end of line 22, and insert—
and the Committee shall, on behalf of each of the Boards, discharge the functions of the Boards in relation to health visitors.".—[Mr. Penhaligon.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 12, Noes 122.

Division No. 74]
AYES
[7.19 p.m.


Beith, A. J.
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)



Body, Richard
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)



Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Steel, Rt Hon David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Freud, Clement
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Mr. David Penhaligon and


Hooson, Emlyn
Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Geraint Howells


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)





NOES


Armstrong, Ernest
Forrester, John
Morton, George


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
George, Bruce
Oakes, Gordon


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Golding, John
Palmer, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Gould, Bryan
Parker, John


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Gourlay, Harry
Parry, Robert


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Graham, Ted
Pavitt, Laurie


Boardman, H.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Radice, Giles


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hardy, Peter
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Robinson, Geoffrey


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Roderick, Caerwyn


Buchan, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Buchanan, Richard
Home Robertson, John
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Canavan, Dennis
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Rooker, J. W.


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Sever, John


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hunter, Adam
Silverman, Julius


Corbett, Robin
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Skinner, Dennis


Cowans, Harry
Janner, Greville
Snape, Peter


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
John, Brynmor
Spriggs, Leslie


Cronin, John
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cunningham, Dr J (Whiteh)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Stoddart, David


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Strang, Gavin


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Tinn, James


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kerr, Russell
Urwin, T. W.


Dempsey, James
Lamond, James
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Doig, Peter
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Watkinson, John


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Weetch, Ken


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Litterick, Tom
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Dunn, James A.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
White, James (Pollok)


Eadie, Alex
McElhone, Frank
Whitlock, William


Edge, Geoff
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Ellis, John (Brig &amp; Scun)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Maclennan, Robert
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Evans, John (Newton)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Woof Robert


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Madden, Max
Young, David (Bolton E)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)



Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce
Mr. Alf Bates and


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Molloy, William
Mr. Thomas Cox

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 6, line 34, after second "order", insert "(a)".

No. 30, in page 6, line 36, at end insert—
(b) shall provide for a majority on the joint committee to be persons who work or have worked in the professional field with which it is primarily concerned".—[Mr. Moyle.]

Clause 10

THE PROFESSIONAL REGISTER

7.30 p.m.

Dr. Vaughan: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 7, line 19, at end insert,
The Central Council shall prepare and maintain a register of persons in training to become nurses, midwives and health visitors who will be accorded full student status until registration.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 45, in clause 23, page 15, line 2, at end insert
'a person of student status' means a person in training who is not an employee.

Dr. Vaughan: The purpose of this amendment is that a register should be kept of persons in training to become nurses, midwives or health visitors and that while in training they should be accorded full student status until they are fully registered.
I am rather surprised that the Government should have ducked the question of giving guidance and leadership to the profession on the employee status of student nurses. This is a very important question which has implications which stretch outside the health area. I should have thought that it was a mistake simply to leave this to the Central Council without giving some opinion on what is a very complicated matter.
The Briggs report rightly said that nurses in training should not consider themselves, nor be considered, as part of the ordinary labour force of the National Health Service. This has great implications for their status and the question whether their finances should come largely by way of educational grants. It also has implications—this may be why the Government ducked even discussing it properly in Com-

mittee—for the manning of the National Health Service.
There are two sets of arguments. One set, which I understand was considered by the Briggs working group, is that the only way for pupil nurses to have a satisfactory course of training is for them to cease to be health authority employees and to become students throughout their training and have to subsist on education grants. The alternative view is that that would be detrimental to their future.
The argument for student status is that it would enable health authorities to plan and provide a more effective service based on a balanced nursing team. That being so, authorities would have a better idea of numbers coming into the service and have better control of the numbers coming out of training examinations. It would also free student and pupil nurses from the pressures which undoubtedly arise when they are part of an established work force. There is frequently a clash between the needs of the wards and the needs of a training programme.

Mr. Powell: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman on the point which he has just passed. I understood him to say that it would be possible for an employing authority to estimate the number of trained nurses who would be coming into service. I am sorry to have to tell him that is a fallacy, as I experienced with the professions ancillary to medicine in the early 1960s when large numbers were under training year after year. When I inquired, after a time, what was happening to them and why they were not coming into the National Health Service, I was told that as soon as they qualified they got married. Therefore, unless that factor is known, the number of students gives no indication of the number of trained nurses who will be coming into service.

Dr. Vaughan: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for that very pertinent and relevant observation. It is clearly based on his great experience in this area. The next point which was made by the Briggs working party was that, by removing the status and implication of employees and the pressures which fall on them as part of the general work force, for some girls it would make


entry into the profession much more attractive.
There are considerable anxieties—this point was put by the Royal College of Nursing to the Secretary of State recently—about a fall in the number of young girls in the population and, as a result, the possible fall in the numbers wanting to go into nursing. The alternative argument is really based on doubts whether present grants would be sufficient to finance these girls right through their training. A very important point is that, if they ceased to be employees, they would cease to enjoy rights under the employment protection legislation.
These rights are seen by some people as a great benefit and protection. My information—I have discussed this matter with various health authorities—is that the Employment Protection Act works in a very unsatisfactory and restricted way in this area. It means that if a girl comes into training and is protected by the Act and it turns out that she is unsuitable, her training cannot be stopped. If she has entered a branch of nursing training for which she is subsequently found unsuitable, she cannot be moved to another branch.
This is a very complicated and important area. I say again that the Government have made a mistake in ducking this issue, because it will arise again and again in the next few years. I think it is wrong to leave the decision to the Central Council without any guidance from this House on how it should view this issue. It will need to discuss this matter very early after its formation.

Mr. Pavitt: As the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) said, there has been considerable discussion about this matter in the working party. In an ideal world, with all the man or woman power available, nothing would be better than to be able to say that we should retain a work force in a hospital in addition to student pupil nurses whose sole status and responsibility was that of learning the job. The Confederation of Health Service Employees, dealing mainly with mental nurses, had considerable discussions and came to the conclusion that, in reality, however much we may care to give those concerned the necessary status, and whether or not we have a register, in

the main the work still had to be coped with. Therefore, I shall listen with interest to my right hon. Friend's reply to the debate.
I think that the hon. Member for Reading, South was quite right when he said that when the Central Council was established there would still be the problem of how to find the right balance between education and training and the real and heavy demands on pairs of hands and feet rushing about a ward, especially when recruitment had not been good or when the attractiveness of the girls referred to by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) meant there was a depletion in numbers because they got married the moment they qualified. I do not think that the establishment of a second register would solve those problems. However much we should like nurses in training to be students, unfortunately they will more often find themselves working in wards. I shall listen with interest to the comments of my right hon. Friend, who, I know, had discussions on this matter with the working party.

Mr. Hodgson: I think that we owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject. After all, we come here to the heart of the Briggs report. Of the 728 paragraphs in the Briggs report, between 200 and 300 are concerned with nurses and midwives in training and the educational processes and future organisation. A relatively minor number of paragraphs—the last 100 or so—concern the organisational framework, timetables, and so on.
I note the point made by my hon. Friend about the nature of student nurses. It seems that a fair comparison can be drawn between a girl or a man undergoing nursing traning and a university student. We would not seek to extend the provisions of the Employment Protection Act to university students undergoing a general degree course. Therefore, it seems inappropriate that employee status should be afforded to student nurses. There is the question not only of their relative position in our economy, or within their profession, but of the vocational nature of their training. Therefore, it is important that the authorities, which are psychologically well attuned to the demands made upon


nurses through the pressures of modern medicine, should be clear, before final registration is afforded to these people, that they are entirely suitable and right for the job.
If we are not to have temporary registration, we run the grave risk of unsuitable people coming and perhaps staying in the profession, with the authorities unable to get rid of them. If that happens, the general standards of nursing, which we are hoping to maintain through the medium of the Bill, will suffer. I hope that the Minister will take all these points on board and consider whether the student nurse should be put on a par with the university student undergoing a degree course.

Mr. Cronin: I understand that the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) intends that student nurses should depend upon educational grants. If so, that would seem to be unsatisfactory. Speaking as a Member for a university town, I know that many students get into difficulties as a result of their grants. For instance, their parents may not pay their share. Such a course would bring total chaos into the financial affairs of nurses prior to registration. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his experience, appreciates the financial difficulties that nurses have to face.

Dr. Vaughan: I think that, normally, this subject would have been discussed in Committee. I was seeking to bring up a matter which was not fully discussed there. I put forward views from the various bodies which have actively been discussing this problem.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Cronin: I do not think that, in the circumstances, the hon. Gentleman should reproach the Government for not having aired this subject before.
The hon. Gentleman said that student nurses should be less liable to duties in the ward and be able to concentrate more on their training. I suggest that would be contrary to the interests of patients. The first concern in any hospital should be the patients, not the training of nurses. I appreciate that in some ways there are clashes between those two views, but I think that patients must have absolute priority.
The effect of the amendment would be to withdraw from nurses the benefit of the Employment Protection Act. I suggest that is an important Act for employees of all kinds and that it would be unfortunate if this deserving body of young women was withdrawn from its protection.
There is an important psychological aspect to the matter. A student tends to regard herself as learning something exclusively and therefore adopts a more lighthearted attitude towards her duties and to life than a fully trained, qualified person. It is important that nurses should be employees and realise that they have duties and responsibilities.

Mr. Pavitt: Would my hon. Friend give the same preference with regard to the training of medical students? Does he regard medical students as having their first responsibility to the patient and their second responsibility to their medical training?

Mr. Cronin: That is a different matter. Medical students do not have any serious duties in hospital, whereas student nurses do.

Mr. Pavitt: My hon. Friend cannot be serious.

Mr. Cronin: I am perfectly serious. Medical students keep notes and examine patients, but the responsibility for patients is always undertaken by house physicians and surgeons. Of course, one gets the impression that students do useful things in hospitals. Indeed, they often do; for example, holding up a patient's arm when he is being operated upon, and so on. However, one could dispense with medical students without seriously affecting the running of a hospital.
I hope that if the hon. Member for Reading, South ever finds himself in hospital he will be looked after by a nurse who realises that she is an employee and has responsibilities rather than a student who can always say "I am only trying to learn. This does not really concern me very deeply."

Mr. Moyle: With respect to the concluding remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), I hope that the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) finds himself in


hospital from time to time. Otherwise, he will be in a very parlous state indeed.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) said that this matter went to the heart of the Briggs report. It may well do that, but it does not go to the heart of the Briggs Bill. The bodies about which we are talking have no responsibility for recuitment, selection of trainees or financial provision, whether through grants or anything else. Those bodies have a remit for the provision of training, not the persons undertaking training. Strictly speaking, the subject is outside the scope of the Bill altogether.
The hon. Member for Reading, South accused the Government of ducking the issue and saying that it was a mistake. I have never been more firmly convinced about anything than that we were wise not to have taken a decision on the matter between Committee and Report and, indeed, for some time to come. He said that the matter would come up again. That is perfectly true; it will come up again. It will be a matter of considerable interest to the profession under the new Briggs machinery.
The hon. Gentleman also said that we cannot leave it to the Central Council. I agree there, because at the moment learner nurses come under the Whitley Councils for negotiation of their terms and conditions of service, and any change in their role or status would required negotiations with that body.
Hon. Members who have spoken are right in saying that the various unions concerned say that more nurses now enjoy the benefits of employment protection legislation and that from their point of view it is a good thing that student and learner nurses should continue to do so.
The Briggs committee was not entirely clear about what should happen to nurses. It discovered that it was not clearly understood what student status meant. Many trainees thought that it meant having a students' union. Others thought that it would mean getting a Government grant instead of being paid a salary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough divined, that put a dampener on enthusiasm for the change. The other matter is that students and pupils would learn theory in college and not in hospital,

and students and pupils would work in wards only to get practice and would not help in staffing them.
We set up a working party on the Briggs co-ordinating committee to look into these matters, and it was not able to define what it really meant by "student status", as opposed to learner status, employee status or any other status. From that point of view, it ran into a number of problems. I concede that there are problems here. There are tensions between those who want to use student or learner nurses in a service capacity—and, of course, they must have some service capacity in order to learn—and those who want to use them entirely for educational purposes. There is a continual tension.
Normally, in most hospitals, good human relations create a balance here. But it may well be that the eventual solution of the problem is not a matter of considering status but of reaching a solution as to how the time of these young people should be allocated between providing practical help in a hospital and undergoing pure instruction. However, the Government are of the view that this is one of the matters which should be left primarily to the Central Council which is to be set up under the Bill.
Another point of importance here is that most of the matters—recruitment, training and that sort of thing—are the responsibility of the Health Service. It will be a provision under the Bill that as the Central Council propounds schemes for training the people whom it covers it will have to go to the Secretary of State and say "We would like our young people trained in this particular way. Can you provide the money for us to do it?" Only to the extent that the Government of the day are able to provide the money to do it will the new schemes come into operation. Therefore, the Government are involved in this in the long term, but we should want the united advice of the professions before we took action.
It is an expensive business, though that is not the prime reason why the Government have ducked a decision on this matter. The prime reason is that we find an uncertain voice coming from the profession. The bodies on the Briggs coordinating committee have not really come to a conclusion about the way forward. The best estimate that we can


offer is that if learner nurses became purely and simply students that might result in a maximum expenditure of about £200 million per year, which is equivalent to about a 3 per cent. growth rate for the National Health Service, to provide fully trained nurses to do the work which learner nurses do at present.
When the Briggs committee looked at this issue against the background of those problems, it came to the conclusion that it was not necessary, in the best interests of the individual learner nurses, to make a change to student status because he, or she, would then be worse off on a grant than on the present training allowance. The Briggs co-ordinating committee reached an overall tentative conclusion that, in the long term, student status should be an objective, but it felt that there was a need for health authorities to look at nurse training as part of their overall planning It did not recommend any major change at this time and felt that this whole question should be one for the new Central Council to consider and then make proposals to Ministers.
This means that the Government, in adopting the attitude that they have done, have followed the most considered advice of the nursing professions at this juncture. For that reason, I hope that the House will not accept these amendments.

Dr. Vaughan: It was quite clear, I think, from the way in which I moved the amendment that we wished to discuss this issue rather than take it to a vote. In view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hodgson: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 7, line 22, leave out 'standards' and insert 'levels'.
This is a modest amendment which has some quite serious implications attached to it. The implications have been put to us very strongly by the Royal College of Nursing and by other representatives of the nursing profession. We debated this matter in Committee. Therefore, I do not want to take too long on it. However, I should like to draw the Government's attention to the concern in the Royal College of Nursing and other places about the different use the word "standards" implies.
It was put to me in Committee that "standards" means that, by analogy, one is dealing with the quality of an individual type of training—that is, to take an A-level pass in the General Certificate of Education, there are grade A grade B and grade C to indicate a different standard of A-level pass. By comparison, O and A-levels are different sorts of examinations. They are not inferior examinations but they are merely examinations which one takes one before the other. It does not imply any inferior nature of the examination itself. It is just something that one takes early in life and is more suitably set for people at certain stages of their development.
This the Minister is not able to accept, and I think he made two particular points in refutation of that point. First, he was surprised that we waited until clause 10 when in fact clause 2 used the word "standards" in subsection (2). The use of "standards" in clause 2 is, in fact, quite a different matter. There we are talking about standards of training. The whole purpose of the Briggs Bill—as we might call it—is to improve the standard of training. Therefore, for the Minister to use that analogy as a refutation of the argument for this amendment is not correct.
The Minister made a further point, namely, that in other areas of nursing legislation the word "standard" was used. In particular, he quoted the Nurses (Amendment) Act 1961. I am afraid that I was not sufficiently quick on my feet in Committee to note—as I did when looking through the Bill afterwards—that on page 30 of the Bill, as now amended, in lines 43 and 44, the Nurses (Amendment) Act 1961, with such critical use of the word "standard", is wholly repealed by the Bill.
The Minister said that this would lead to a duplicatory use and interpretation of the words, whereas the example he gave before in support of his argument was from a statute which will be entirely repealed by the passage of this Bill.
I should like to ask the Minister to take on board the serious nature of the comments that have been made to us by the Royal College of Nursing and the inherent and slightly semantic differences between the use of the words "standards"


and "levels", and accept that the profession which he is so ready to call in aid at other times when he wishes us to accept an amendment which he is putting through—which I and my hon. Friends are perfectly ready to accept—should be called in aid here. I ask him to accept that this change would be a useful one.

8 p.m.

Mr. Moyle: In Committee, whereas no one was prepared to say that "standards" was the most perfect answer to the problem, many hon. Members found that "levels" was no more attractive. In the end, I said that if the Royal College of Nursing wanted to pursue this matter with me, I would probably take its preference. As a matter of fact, the Royal College of Nursing has not pursued it with me since the Committee stage. I do not, therefore, see the point of substituting one word for another when the word to be substituted appears to be almost equally as unattractive to half of the House as the existing word is to the other half. I beg the House not to accept the amendment.

Mr. Hodgson: If the Royal College of Nursing wishes to come back to the Minister subsequent to the passage of the Bill through this House to another place, will he consider himself still ready to receive representations on this point?

Mr. Moyle: I do not mind doing that, but I am rather loth to inflict this sort of debate on another place.

Mr. Hodgson: In the light of the Minister's assurance that he will at least consider the representations of the Royal College of Nursing, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Vaughan: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 8, line 23, leave out "a fully qualified nurse" and insert
State Registered Nurse (SRN) or State Registered Practical Nurse (SRPN)".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take amendment No. 50, in schedule 6, page 25, line 31, leave out "fully qualified nurse", and insert
State Registered Nurse (SRN) or State Registered Practical Nurse (SRPN)".

Dr. Vaughan: Again, this amendment concerns something that we discussed in

committee, so I shall endeavour to be very brief. It also concerns a rather unsatisfactory situation.
As the Bill now stands, the terms "State, registered nurse" and "State enrolled nurse" will disappear, and in their place will come "fully qualified nurse". This is open to objection, because a nurse who at present is an enrolled nurse is a fully qualified nurse, as is the nurse who at present is a State registered nurse. They will be termed "fully qualified nurse." Therefore, it could be taken as derogatory in some ways to one of the nursing groups. Our advice from the various professional groups is that they do not like the term "fully qualified nurse". So far, I have heard no one who is in support Of it. Therefore, it seems wrong to write it into the Bill.
At one time, the Minister told the Committee that he, too, did not like the term "fully qualified nurse". He suggested that over the Christmas Recess, perhaps, some sort of competition might be organised, and that out of that might come a better term. Nothing better came until we had some discussions with the Royal College of Nursing, which suggested—this is not a unanimous view in the Royal College of Nursing, but it is one that I share—that "State registered nurse", "SRN", is a time-honoured term. Everyone understands what it means. It has great status in the community. I know that when nurses qualify they are very proud to put the letters "SRN" after their name. Therefore, I suggest that if "SRN" can be retained it should be in place of "fully qualified nurse".
That leaves us with the situation of the State enrolled nurse and what she should be called. Again, I suggest that "fully qualified nurse" would be confusing and that we might adopt the practice used in some other parts of the world—in the United States and in some parts of Europe, for instance—of the enrolled nurse becoming a State registered practical nurse. That is that she would then be able to put "SRPN" after her name.
Perhaps that is not quite as attractive a term as "SRN", but it is the best that people advising us have produced so far. It certainly seems to Opposition Members very much better than the term "fully qualified nurse", which everyone seems to agree is unsatisfactory.

Mr. Molloy: I follow what the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) said about the letters "SRN". This is an acknowledged and well-known proper description for a State registered nurse, and everyone outside the profession recognises it as such. I cannot see the need to add more confusion by changing this description.
There is one other point which I should like my right hon. Friend to consider. Many people who have become State registered nurses, entitled to use the letters "SRN" or "SEN" or the description "State certified midwife", have documents in which these terms are incorporated. In the nursing profession, the young ladies call them their gongs. Some of them are anxious about the new letters indicating that there may be a difference between a State registered nurse and someone with the proposed nomenclature. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider that aspect as well.

Mr. Moyle: I agree with the lack of enthusiasm with which the term "fully qualified nurse" is regarded in the House, and I said so in Committee. In fact, in desperation, I was driven to adopt a sort of "goal of the month" approach to the solution of the problem by saying that I would give a substantial reward—substantial in my eyes—to any member of the public who came up with a suggestion that might be adopted, the first acceptable solution to the problem to be the one that would win.
Unfortunately, in spite of the fact that one of the nursing publications took up the idea, there was no great response from the nursing profession. We have not been left with a rich fund of names to trawl. Fortunately, we still have a little time. I have noted that it has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) and the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan)—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) made the same point in Committee—that the term "State registered nurse" is one which is highly regarded in the profession. We ought to hang on to it as far as possible.
I shall bear this point very much in mind. We have a week or two yet in which to think of a solution. I promise to bear this in mind and to table amend-

ments at the appropriate stage. I have made no particular commitment to the phrase which is in the Bill now.

Mr. Boscawen: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take the views of the House very seriously. "SRN" is a title that we all prefer to keep if we possibly can. I believe that that is the unanimous view of the House. We shall not get an ideal description for the change. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take this matter very seriously and that when the Bill goes to another place it will have included in it the description "SRN". The question of the description "SRPN" is a different matter. We might be able to produce a better description than that.

Dr. Vaughan: In view of the Minister's assurance on this matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Vaughan: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 8, line 24, at end insert:
'(9) The Central Council shall make regulations for the temporary registration of nurses, midwives and health visitors having recognised overseas qualifications.'.
We think that the Government are making a mistake in not providing something short of full registration. There will be people coming from overseas, from other parts of Europe in particular, who will want to stay and practise nursing in this country for a very short period. We think that it would be wrong that they should have to go through the full process of registration.
We discussed this matter in Committee. I hope very much that the weight of the argument will have sunk in with the Minister and that he will accept a temporary registration as a part-way solution for people temporarily in this country and intending to go overseas.
We know that the various nursing groups have been looking at this matter. I think that it is their view that some sort of temporary arrangement will be necessary. I can see no reason why it should not be written into the Bill at this stage.

Mr. Moyle: I do not think that a specific power for temporary registration is necessary. By clause 10(3)(c) there is


already provision for a person's registration to lapse after a specified period and in specified cases. For example, if a person comes to this country from a Common Market country, we cannot prevent registration; but if that person has not learned English to a sufficient extent to communicate with patients in this country after six months or a year, he or she could be removed from the register. That is the equivalent of temporary registration in practice. Therefore, there is no need to introduce the concept of temporary registration when we can handle these problems without it.
It may be felt that limited registration could be introduced. I gather that some members of the Briggs committee felt that there was need for a mechanism by which some overseas nurses whose training has not been sufficiently advanced could be given a kind of half-way house. That is unacceptable on a philosophical level because either an overseas qualification is equivalent to registration or it is not. If it is equivalent to registration, the person concerned, subject to his or her knowledge of English, can go ahead to provide a service. If the knowledge of the language is not sufficient, such a person should not provide a full nursing service unless under certain conditions he or she is being taught that knowledge.
We would also run into trouble with our EEC partners and with the Commission if we were to adopt such an approach. The present approach enables us not to fall into difficulties with the EEC. There would be great difficulty in deciding which tasks an overseas nurse with limited registration could undertake without risk to patients and which tasks she could not undertake, whereas under the present system such a nurse, if not fully registered, would be regarded as a learner. Furthermore, in the case of accident there may be problems of legal liability.
For this reason, health authorities are not particularly anxious to see this kind of registration. Indeed, the registering authority of the General Nursing Council does not wish to undermine the present high standard. For these reasons, I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Dr. Vaughan: I do not know that the Minister has convinced the Opposi-

tion on this matter. However, in view of his explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11

ADMISSION TO REGISTER

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 9, line 8, after 'Kingdom', insert 'or elsewhere'.
This amendment is aimed at clarifying an amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) in Committee which I accepted in principle, so as to make crystal clear the conditions under which people from overseas could be accepted for registration in this country. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend's amendment was technically defective because it omitted the words "or elsewhere". This amendment puts the position right.

Mr. Powell: I hope that I can persuade the Minister to withdraw the amendment, and I also hope that in so doing I shall not incur the displeasure of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt).
I believe that in this amendment the Minister is perpetrating a nonsense. If we construe the subsection, it can be seen that we are dealing with a person who elsewhere than in the United Kingdom has undergone training which either is or is not recognised as up to the required standards.
In the second case the person concerned may be required to undergo additional training—presumably training to bring him up to the required standard. But if we insert the words "or elsewhere" we get a nonsense. If the person concerned has additional training elsewhere than in the United Kingdom, he comes under subsection (3)(c)(i), because elsewhere than in the United Kingdom he has undergone training. It does not envisage training all of a heap, but training in total which is of a standard necessary to bring him up to the required level.
I suggest that the Minister was right the first time and that the insertion of the words "or elsewhere" produces not merely a tautology but an inherent contradiction. I hope that the Minister will agree to have this examined in a place where they are even better than we are in dealing with points of drafting.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Moyle: I shall not agree to withdraw the amendment at this stage but, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's comments, I shall brood on his remarks and see whether we can remove the amendment in another place.

Mr. Molloy: Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister, when he takes that step, will refresh his memory about the debates we had on this subject in Committee. I am sure that he agrees that this is a vitally important matter.

Mr. Pavitt: My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) has taken the words out of my mouth. I shall not weary the House by repeating the arguments advanced in Committee. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will try to deal with the concern which has been expressed as a result of the problems that occur when Commonwealth workers, who have had a certain amount of experience overseas, come to this country. I invite my right hon. Friend to read once again the arguments that were put forward on this topic in Committee.

Mr. Moyle: I take the point made by my hon. Friends, but, as I understand it, there is no difference in principle between my hon. Friends and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). This is merely a matter of drafting. We are seeking to ensure that any additional training that is necessary can be undertaken in the United Kingdom or before the person comes here—probably in a Commonwealth country. It is a matter of finding the appropriate words to express that concept.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 9, line 10, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'(4) In the case of an applicant within subsection (3)(b) or (c), the rules may either—

(a) make it an additional condition of his being registered that he has the necessary knowledge of English; or
(b) requires him to have that knowledge within a period specified by the rules (failing which his registration will lapse at the end of the period).'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 37

Mr. Moyle: There was an interesting debate during the seventh sitting of the Standing Committee on the question of nurses who come from abroad and apply for registration. Three amendments were tabled by the Opposition, which were then amendments Nos. 94, 89 and 96. They were aimed at restricting the registration and clinical responsibilities of such nurses until those concerned were able to satisfy the registration authorities that the applicants had a satisfactory knowledge of English.
I have decided to accept the first two amendments in principle, so that it will be crystal clear to those who read this legislation that nurses will be tested for knowledge of English. That was always our intention, but the Committee did not feel that this was sufficiently clearly expressed because it was expressed in a technical way in relation to further amendments. I have recast the Opposition amendments in ways that the parliamentary draftsman finds more acceptable. I have already explained that temporary registration is not a technique that I favour in meeting this problem.
I should make clear that, independently of the Bill, I intend to introduce an Order in Council later this year to amend the Nurses Act to conform with these amendments and to assimilate nursing in pursuance of our Community obligation under directives 77/452/EEC and 77/453/EEC. The order will be laid in draft and be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as was desired by the Committee. So there will inevitably be a full opportunity for parliamentary debate on the detailed provisions. I hope that these arrangements are satisfactory to the House and that the amendments will be accepted.

Dr. Vaughan: As the Minister knows, we felt most strongly that it would be wrong if nurses were able to work in this country without an adequate grasp of English. We are glad that the Minister not only agreed in Committee but has now come forward with this preferable wording, which we support.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 37, in page 9, line 17, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Moyle.]

Clause 12

REMOVAL FROM, AND RESTORATION TO, REGISTER

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendhent No. 38, in page 9, line 24, at end insert:
'whether or not for a specified period'.
Briefly, this is a clarifying amendment. It apparently was not clear to all members of the Committee that the Central Council had power not only to remove people from the register but to suspend them. We have put in a specific statement that the Council will have the power to suspend. I hope that that will be acceptable to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 39 in, page 9, line 29, leave out "may" and insert "shall".
In Committee, when we dealt with disciplinary matters, it was left open as an option that the whole Central Council could hear a disciplinary proceeding. The Committee felt that this matter should be dealt with by a committee of the Central Council. This amendment is moved to allow the Central Council to deal with these disciplinary matters either by appointing a committee or more than one committee if necessary. As this meets the wishes of the Committee, I hope that the amendment will be accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 40 in, page 9, line 34, at end insert—
and the rules shall so provide that the members of a committee constituted to adjudicate upon the conduct of any person are selected with due regard to the professional field in which that person works".
The Committee felt that there should be representation on the committee from members of the same profession as the person whose case was being heard. For example, a health visitor's case would not be heard entirely by general nurses, and so on. This amendment is made to meet more accurately the objective of the previous amendment by referring to professional fields of work. There was a reference to "profession". As health visitors, for example, are nurses as well

as health visitors, it was not entirely clear what the simple word "profession" would mean. I hope that the new wording will clarify the position and enble the intentions of the Committee to be put into operation.

Mr. Boscawen: We are glad that this amendment has been inserted in this way. In the interests of justice, it improves the clause by providing that individuals have a right to a hearing before those who know their profession. We are grateful that the amendment has been put forward.

Mr. Hodgson: When we discussed this amendment in Committee, the wording was:
and not less than one quarter of the members of each committee shall be members of the same profession as the person whose case is being heard.
The amendment was accepted in principle by the Minister, subject to the definition of the word "profession". The amendment that he has now brought forward uses the words:
a committee constituted … are selected with due regard to the professional field in which that person works".
In the amendment that we moved in Committee we distinctly said 25 per cent. That is not a majority and would not give an inbuilt bias towards the person, but at the same time it would give a clear assurance that a minority on the tribunal would be of the same profession as the person whose case was being heard.
The Minister's amendment has weakened that by the form of words used. I accept that he is trying to comply with the spirit of what we were getting at in Committee, but we would like to hear why he has chosen to water down the commitment that he gave, particularly as he has amended the points that he made concerning the definition of the word "profession".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 9, line 38, at end insert:
'and for the proceedings to be in public except in such cases (if any) as the rules may specify.'.
In Committee we had much discussion on publicity in reporting disciplinary matters. It was clear that there were


two principles that were difficult to reconcile. The first was the traditional one of British justice, that justice should be open and public. That was the standpoint that the Bill adopted. The other principle was that in professional disciplinary proceedings there was considerable advantage in preserving a certain degree of anonymity, privacy and perhaps, in a limited sense, censorship. Both principles are important. In this amendment we adopt the solution that we had for the Medical Act 1978—that is, that the disciplinary proceedings will take place in public unless the Central Council decides to the contrary. In fact, the General Medical Council has decided that, as a general rule, its disciplinary hearings will be in private, but it is in a position, if it finds that that solution does not work in practice, to revert to publicity. This leaves the Central Council to decide on the reconciliation of these two conflicting principles, and for that purpose I hope that the House will accept the amendment.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Boscawen: I cannot let this amendment go without drawing attention to the fact that there were strong feelings in Committee that the balance was wrong in the Bill as originally drafted. To put an individual on trial before the press and the media in certain lurid cases, and subsequently for that individual to be found guiltless and have to live for the rest of his professional life with that slur on his character, seemed wrong to us, and we sought to avoid it.
We believe that our original amendment to the Bill covered that situation. I agree with the Minister that it is difficult to get the balance right. It is not in the interests of justice or of the public that it should be thought that a professional body, such as the Central Council, is hiding anything from the public. Nevertheless, we feel that there is a need to protect individuals who may be found guiltless.
Although the Minister's amendment—which supersedes our amendment which was passed overwhelmingly in Committee—puts the onus on the Central Council to decide what is best in an individual case, there must be the feeling among members of that Council that the House of Commons has ducked this issue and

has not really made up its mind whether it should protect the good name of innocent individuals who may have been tried by the media because of the details of some lurid case. We shall accept the amendment, but I hope that those on the Central Council who draw up the rules will pay attention to the opinions expressed both in Committee and in the House. We have strong feelings that certain cases should be heard in private until the findings are reached because of the fact that they may well cause great harm to guiltless individuals for the rest of their professional careers.

Mr. Powell: Will the Minister cast light upon two questions arising from the amendment? He mentioned that the General Medical Council, operating under a similar formula, had decided that cases should normally be heard in private. I wonder whether it would be lawful for the Council to arrive at such a decision under this wording. If the wording in the statute is to be
for the proceedings to be in public except in such cases (if any) as the rules may specify".
I wonder whether it would be within the statute to make the rules so that the proceedings shall not he in public in any case. Apparently, that is what is happening. Is it happening under the same wording? If so, how can that be in accordance with the provisions of the statute?
The natural meaning and, I would have thought, the legal construction of these words is that the rules can only specify either individual cases or types of case—although they need not specify any at all—in which the hearing is to be in private. There is no power to revoke by rule the general provision that the proceedings are to be in public.
Secondly, could the Minister relate this amendment to amendment no. 48, which proposes to delete paragraph 5 of schedule 3? This deals with the matter of publication. One appreciates that if proceedings are held in public there can be no grounds for attempting to impose censorship upon the reporting of those proceedings. That is inherently contradictory. But what would happen in cases where the hearings are in private? Would there be any offence created by the publication of any part of those proceedings? At the moment paragraph 5 does not specify whether the proceedings


are in public or private. There seems to be an overlap that it is desirable to clear up.
If any vestige of paragraph 5 of schedule 3 is to remain, may I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that in the form in which the prohibition is expressed, until paragraph 5 is removed a prohibition on publication or broadcasts in Northern Ireland is meaningless since both broadcasting and publication in the press are equally effective whether the transmission takes place in the United Kingdom or the Republic.
I understand that these points may not be able to be resolved at this stage. However, if that is so, I should be grateful for an undertaking that they will be attended to in subsequent stages of the Bill.

Mr. Moyle: I confess that I had not devoted much thought to the question of how publication in Great Britain or the Republic might affect Northern Ireland and its receipt of the information. I intended to remove paragraph 5 of schedule 3 in my amendment and consequently I did not give much thought to the detail. I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that paragraph 5, which was inserted as a result of an Opposition amendment in Committee, contained the serious defect that it carried no penalty for the enforcement of its provisions. That is one reason why I believe that paragraph 5 should be removed. It is consequential upon the proposed amendment no. 41.

Mr. Powell: Is the Minister saying that after the two Government amendments are passed there will be no penalty and no offence for publishing proceedings that have taken place in private?

Mr. Moyle: As far as I can see, that is the case. All these matters will be left to professional enforcement under the rules of the Central Council. I presume that the penalty for breaching rules about publicity would be removal or suspension from the register.
It had been my intention to apply to the Central Council the same solution as we applied to the General Medical Council, but I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that the amendment is word for word the same as the provision relat-

ing to the General Medical Council. However, I certainly intend that the amendment should be as near as possible to that, subject to the fact that we are inserting this amendment into a different part of the legislation. The General Medical Council has adopted a similar provision that disciplinary cases will be heard in private. That provision has not yet been challenged and I cannot pass an opinion as to what would be the outcome of a challenge in court.

Mr. Powell: Is it the Minister's intention that the Central Council should be able to make rules providing that no proceedings should be in public? We cannot, at the moment, deal with the interpretation of the law under which the General Medical Council operates, but we should decide how we wish this law to be interpreted. Shall we leave it to the Central Council to annul a provision completely? Or do we consider that the Council should have the power from case to case or in a specified class of cases to provide for privacy of hearings? That is a big distinction, and it is not without constitutional importance.

Mr. Moyle: The problem to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention could be resolved by removing publicity for all cases for a specified period and by having that removal renewed from time to time.
It is my intention to give the maximum freedom to the Central Council to arrange its own affairs in accordance with the advantage that it sees for the nursing profession. The problem raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) could be solved in the way that I have suggested, but that is a matter for the Central Council.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16

LOCAL SUPERVISION OF MIDWIFERY PRACTICE

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment no. 42, in page 11, line 25, at end insert—
'(3A) The National Boards are responsible for providing the authorities with advice and guidance in respect of the exercise of their functions under this section.'.
This is a technical amendment dealing with the role of the national boards in


relation to midwifery practice. Midwives work under supervising authorities, which are usually health authorities. They are listed in the Bill.
The amendment is intended to make plain that the national boards are also able to provide advice and guidance to the supervising authorities. That was not clear in the original drafting, and the amendment is intended to make sure that it is understood that the midwifery committees of national boards can advise the supervising health authorities on the matters set out in the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20

ACCOUNTS OF COUNCIL AND BOARDS

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment no. 44, in page 12, line 40, after 'persons', insert
'(qualified in accordance with Schedule 3A (Qualifications of auditors))'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment no. 51.

Mr. Moyle: The amendment seeks to put into language that is acceptable to the parliamentary draftsmen the principles embodied in an amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen). I promised the hon. Gentleman that we would accept the principles of his amendment, and we have now done so.

Mr. Boscawen: I have looked carefully at the amendment, and I am glad that it runs almost parallel with the wording of the amendment that we moved in Committee. I take it from what the Minister said that there is no variation of principle.
There are two important principles involved. We are dealing with a public body which has the right to prescribe fees payable to the public and we therefore believe that the audit of the accounts of that body should be conducted by independent persons.
The second important point is that the audit should not be carried out in a way that gives the Secretary of State absolute power to decide who is to audit the funds and how they are to be audited. The

amendment covers those matters and we are pleased to see it included in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

New Schedule

QUALIFICATIONS OF AUDITORS

1. A person is qualified for the purposes of section 20(2) if he is a member of one of the recognised professional bodies.

2. Those bodies are—

the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales;
the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland;
the Association of Certified Accountants; and
the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland.

3. A person is also qualified if he is a member of a body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and recognised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 161(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1948.

4. A Scottish firm is qualified if each of the partners in it is so.'— [Mr. Moyle.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1

CONSTITUTION ETC. OF CENTRAL COUNCIL

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment no. 46, in page 16, line 23, at end insert
which day is not to be more than three years from the coming into force of section 1".
This amendment has been accepted in principle already. I hope, therefore, that it will be accepted in this context.

Mr. Hodgson: The Opposition are pleased to see this amendment since it gives the Bill a degree of urgency to get the proceedings of the new Central Council and its national boards under way.
In Committee, we were concerned that there might be unnecessary delay. We felt that a degree of urgency was needed to avoid any further disagreement amongst the various sections of the profession. We are pleased that the Minister has taken this on board and moved this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2

CONSTITUTION ETC. OF NATIONAL BOARDS

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment no. 47, in page 18, line 22, leave out "one year" and insert "two years".
This seeks to correct an amendment made in Committee. The Bill went to Committee saying that a scheme of elections should be prepared within two years. The Committee considered the matter and, after some debate and a Division, concluded that one year was quite sufficient to prepare for the elections to the national boards which will follow the completion of the first three-year period of the appointed Council and the national boards.
I have thought long and deeply about this problem. The debate in Committee turned almost entirely on the electoral preparations for producing elections but not to any great extent on the preliminary work which would have to be undertaken by the Central Council before it got round to considering the electoral arrangements.
Let me set out those arrangements so that right hon. and hon. Members may appreciate some of the problems. After the appointed Council meets for the first time, it will have to decide the terms and conditions of service of its chief officers and then it will have to appoint them. After that, it will have to draft standing orders for its procedures and adopt those. Then it will have to turn its mind to agreement on its staffing structure, establishment and the terms and conditions of service. Having done that, it will have to begin appointing staff below the rank of chief officer. To prepare for electoral registration work and to prepare a scheme of election, it will have to appoint fairly junior staff, including filing clerks, shorthand typists, and so on, as well as setting up an office. Then, before it can set up an electoral register it will have to decide on what the nurse register is to be based.
That latter part will be quite a complicated business because there are in existence three registers, five rolls and two lists. These will have to be amalgamated and harmonised. They are not all live registers in the proper sense of the word. Some people on them apparently have

died in the literal sense. Others are dead registrations in a technical sense.
The order which affirms the eventual register produced from all this will have to be laid before the House of Commons and debated and, of course, there will have to be consultations with the interested parties during the whole exercise. Incidentally, the consultation period is unlikely to be less than three months.
Having done that, only then can the Central Council turn its mind to preparing a draft election scheme and to preparing an election register from the nurse register which it has compiled. After that, there will be the compilation of an election register and other arrangements which are inevitably involved in preparation for any election. Although I had hoped that this work would be completed in under two years, I thought that it was taking a risk to insist that it was done in less than one year. I am therefore advising the House to revert to two years

Mr. Hodgson: In moving amendment no. 46 the Minister showed that he realised the need for urgency in getting past the run-in stage of this new structure. He now moves another amendment which will make that run-in stage more prolonged. I can only describe the issues covered in his speech as displaying bureaucratic inertia. They were fully covered in Committee. As the Minister has remarked many times, a degree of unanimity has finally been brought to the nursing profession by the knowledge that the legislation was being proceeded with. Some agreement had to be reached because the legislation was rolling on remorselessly. The longer the intervening period before the new electoral arrangements come into force, the more the danger exists of the chance for second thoughts and fresh disagreement.
I did not find the Minister's arguments about the administrative system, particularly his reference to filing clerks and so on, very endearing or, indeed, polite to future employees of the Central Council. But where there is a will, there is a way. Because of the progress made by the various parties in the time since the Bill went into Committee at the end of November, I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of man to introduce an electoral scheme within the period laid


down in the Bill, as amended in Standing Committee.

Mr. Pavitt: I regret that my right hon. Friend is seeking to reverse the decision of the Committee upstairs. We debated the matter fully, and at this time of evening I do not propose to press my opposition to a Division. My right hon. Friend brought me nearly to tears when I realised the burden of work to be placed on the 45 members of this new Council. Nevertheless, the proposition in the schedule that we are amending from one year to two years does not mean that the electoral register shall be prepared, that a scheme shall be operating, or that people must be appointed to posts.
The point of the schedule is merely that a scheme shall be submitted. I do not believe it is impossible within the first 12 months to submit a scheme. We are not asking that it should be operative. We are not asking for all the details to be completed. There are a number of different alternatives. With a Council of 45 members, I would have thought that a small sub-committee could be hived off to produce a scheme quickly, although I take my right hon. Friend's submission that it would take further time to get the machinery into operation.
If the matter is left two years, my main concern is that the Bill will not bite quickly enough. The more we delay, the longer it will take for real effective action to take place.

Mr. Moyle: I think that the opposition, to this amendment is entirely misconceived, particularly by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson). As a result of the amendments that the House has accepted, the first elections will take place three years after the appointed Central Council comes into existence. The amendment will not accelerate or decelerate that process: it will merely allow the Council time within that period to produce its election scheme. The elections are bound to take place three years after the original Council is appointed, so the opposition is entirely misconceived.

Mr. Hodgson: The Minister referred to amendment no. 46, but that provides that three years is a maximum, not a minimum. It is therefore not true to say that an election will take place three years

after the Act comes into force. It could be up to three years, and we hope that it will be much less. The Minister showed commendable urgency in inserting that maximum proviso. Why could he not show similar urgency here, particularly since, as the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) says, we are talking only about schemes and not about actual elections?

Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman will realise that we are cutting the period within which the first elections must be held from between three and five years to three years, so it is highly unlikely that there will be an election before three years are up anyway.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE COUNCIL AND COMMITTEES

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 21, leave out lines 40 to 46.
I have already debated this matter with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on an earlier amendment, so I hope that there will be no need to go over the ground further and that it will be accepted. It is consequential on the amendment about publicity that I moved a few minutes ago.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS, ETC.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 22, line 33, at end insert—
' 2A. Orders under paragraph 2 shall provide for persons suffering loss of employment in consequence of the dissolution of any of the replaced statutory bodies (whether or not they are entitled to payments in respect of that loss of employment under legislation relating to redundancy) to be entitled, in such circumstances as the order may specify, to compensation payable by the Central Council on scales laid down by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service.
2B. Any dispute arising as to whether or not—

 (a) the terms of employment with one of the new statutory bodies are, or would be,


less favourable to a person than those on which he was employed at the time when the employment was offered to him; or
(b) whether or not a person's refusal of employment with one of those bodies was reasonable,
and any dispute concerning the compensation referred to in paragraph 2A, shall be referred to and determined by an industrial tribunal.'.
This amendment takes up the point raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett). He was anxious to ensure proper provision for compensating anybody involved in loss of office as a result of the supersession of the existing nursing profession governing bodies by the Central Council and the national boards. I stress that we do not envisage any redundancy as a result, but, to give an absolute sense of security to the existing employees of the governing bodies, we have tabled this amendment. I am sure that we all feel that the officers of the existing governing bodies have done a good job. In no way would we wish to threaten their security of employment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

8.59 p.m.

Dr. Vaughan: This is an immensely important moment in the life of a Bill which is very important for the future of the nursing profession. It is only right to acknowledge the help of the professional groups during the passage of the Bill. We hope that it will give them great satisfaction when it finally reaches them.
The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) referred earlier to the widespread agreement in the House on this Bill. That has been apparent in our debates and is shown also in the present form of the Bill.
This has not been an easy Bill. The nursing professions were not totally agreed on what they wanted. That was made clear in the discussions and by the various representations that have been made to us about the future of health visitors. Our policy throughout has been to safeguard minority groups while not in any way undermining the effectiveness

of the future Central Council. Between us all we have achieved that.
Hundreds of people have written to us. It is of great credit to the writers that these were not all standard letters. The majority of the letters were written individually. The writers set out their own experiences on the matters that they felt strongly about that appeared in the Bill.
I pay tribute to the representatives of the nurses, especially the Royal College of Nursing and the midwives and health visitors who listened to our proceedings in Committee week after week and made their views known to us afterwards.
The House may take some credit for the way in which the Bill has emerged and may feel some satisfaction. It is a much better measure now than when it first came to us. There are some issues that we hope those in another place will consider carefully. We have clearly identified the issues. I hope that their Lordships will put back into the Bill some of the insertions that we made in Committee and that the Bill will be enacted in that form. We may all take some pride in the Bill.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Pavitt: I echo the words of the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) and say that this has been a constructive Bill. Its passage has been harder than we thought and there have been some disappointments. We were hoping that by the time our consideration on Report was completed certain problems would be ironed out. That has not been so.
I pay tribute, as did the hon. Member for Reading, South, to the tremendous amount of interest that has been shown by the professions and to the great help that we have had from them. My right hon. Friend and his Department have been prepared at any time to give information and briefing when differences have occurred and when we have required further information. That information has been given in Committee and between sittings of the Committee.
I am concerned about the speed of implementation. I congratulate the Government on bringing forward the Bill early in the Session. It should have been introduced during 1978, but that proved not to be possible. It is vital that the


Bill gets on to the statute book at the earliest possible opportunity.
The Bill is part of a changing system in nursing. At present nursing is in a state of ferment. There is tremendous pressure being brought to bear on recruitment, pay and career structures. The implementation of the Briggs report is a vital part of our further examination of the career structure. These matters were first brought before us in 1968. That is why it is so important that the Bill comes into operation speedily. Without the education background, the further changes that I envisage in the next four or five years will be delayed. Therefore, speed is of tremendous importance.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. He has had to occupy the crease for quite a long time today, as he did in Committee. I know that that is part of a Minister's job. Ministers are paid more for their job than Back Benchers, so it may be right that they do a little more work. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's patience and the way in which he has dealt with some of the arguments that have been advanced in Committee and on Report.
In the negotiations it is vital that the various organisations reach agreement and manage to resolve the few small difficulties that remain. Unless they can do that, we in this place are powerless to give effect to the Bill as we would wish.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Hodgson: We come to the end of what was supposed to be an uncontroversial Bill. In fact, we have had eight Committee sittings, and goodness knows how many hundreds of letters have been received by hon. Members, especially by those who considered the Bill in Committee.
I echo the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) but I add two further comments. I regret that they have a slightly discordant note. I do not wish to spoil the happy atmosphere at the end of our discussion. I refer to the Minister's attitude to the general public and their place on the national boards. By introducing amendments, the right hon. Gentleman sought to shuffle out the public interest without referring to that intention in his introduction. More important, there is the position of the

disciplinary committees and the make-up of their membership.
In Committee the Minister gave an undertaking on the question of no fewer than a quarter of the members being from the profession concerned It was understood by the Opposition that the Minister wished to consider further the meaning of the word "profession". He used the word "profession". We understood that a clear commitment was given to a quarter of the membership being made up of persons from the same profession as that of the person whose case was being heard. By comparison, the Minister's amendment was a weak and feeble child. When I drew his attention to that fact he did not have the courtesy to answer. He immediately pushed the amendment through on the next and we went on to the next amendment.
Apart from those two minor provisos, about which I am unhappy at this stage, I thank the many people from outside the House who brought to our deliberations expert insight, knowledge and help. I wish the nursing profession in the United Kingdom all success in its new guise.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Molloy: When the Bill was first printed and we read it and related its contents to the Briggs recommendations, it seemed as though we were in for a lengthy and difficult time. As a result of the almost free manner in which the Committee operated, we were able to get to the quintessence of many of the problems. There was remarkable cooperation—although members of the Committee were apprehensive—from representatives of nurses, midwives and health visitors in the Health Service.
From the remarkable interest shown by those organisations, as well as by the big trade unions, NUPE and COHSE, we were able to understand more quickly their intentions as they understood the Bill. I have served on many Committees in the House of Commons, and I thought the manner in which the professional organisations and the trade unions operated in making their recommendations, and in requesting to see us so that we should understand their points of view, was almost a classical example of how the House of Commons should work.
It is right to underline the part played by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, his many courtesies and patience, and the great way in which he was prepared to help. He acknowledged that sometimes we had to push him rather hard in the direction in which he did not want to go. He was able to understand that it was right and proper that the points agreed to by the majority of the Committee should be conceded, especially when they represent an across-the-board opinion, with no political influence other than what Members of Parliament genuinely feel.
Finaly, the aims and objects of this Bill will provide great assistance to the profession that it is intended to help. As a result, its members will provide an even better Health Service for the British people.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. Moyle: I moved the Third Reading formally in the hope that it would help the House generally if I spoke in answer to points raised on Third Reading. I am pleased that I adopted that course as one or two points have been raised upon which I should like to comment.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) and Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) for their words of appreciation. I devote most of my appreciation to the fact that we have now reached the end of the Third Reading. I hope that we have introduced a measure which will enable the professions to go forward in unity and co-ordination and apply the Briggs report.
I believe that never has a measure which was agreed by all the parties caused such excitement during its passage through the House. There has also been a very concerned involvement by the profession in the country in all our deliberations. I can remember no other occasion on which so many members of the public have attended the proceedings in the Committee, filling all the available space from start to finish. Indeed, there were members of the public queueing up to fill vacant seats.
I will pass on to members of my Department the kind words of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South con-

cerning their work. They have worked hard on the Bill because they believed in the essential principles of the measure that they were putting forward. We have tried to follow a policy of giving the maximum amount of information to all Members in Committee to assist them in their deliberations.
In this brief Third Reading debate, hon. Members on each side have also expressed their admiration and thanks to the professional groups for the help they have given and for the way in which that help has been extended. It only reinforces my experience during the many meetings of the Briggs co-ordinating committee, in which I worked very closely with all the professions concerned. I well recall the courteous way in which they worked hard to provide solutions.
This is a Bill to which hon. Members in all parts of the House have made contributions. Although the basic drafting of the Bill was the work of parliamentary draftsmen, approved by Ministers, the Bill now contains a number of amendments submitted in Committee by hon. Members, including a number of Opposition amendments. I have no hesitation in saying that, in my view, the amendments have in most cases improved the Bill.
There are still some unhappy health visitors and we have an unhappy hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson). The hon. Gentleman is upset at the thought that disciplinary committees have not a firm commitment to one-quarter of the membership coming from the group of the profession to which the accused, if I may use that term, belongs. The hon. Gentleman suggested that my amendment was a feeble one. I do not think that this is so. In terms of my amendment, there is no reason why all the members of the disciplinary committee, when it is hearing, for example, a disciplinary case against a district nurse, should not be district nurses. The amendment provides a flexible solution to the problem and I think that this is the way forward.
There has on occasion—particularly in Committee and sometimes also on Report—been a tendency for some hon. Members to try to nanny the nursing professions. I believe that the more freedom


we give them to work out their solutions to practical problems, the more likely is the principle of the unity of these professions to work in practice.
There is still the problem of overcoming the sense of unease felt by health visitors in particular, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South that the key to solving the problem is agreement. Everything is possible if we can get a substantial measure of agreement among the bodies represented on the Briggs co-ordinating committee as to where the frontiers should be drawn between minority and majority interests. This is a problem which will engage their Lordships, but the key to it all is agreement. In this respect we shall have to wait very much on the professions. With that thought, I leave the Bill with the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

AVERYS LIMITED

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: It is not too large a claim to make that Averys is the weighing machine industry of the United Kingdom. Since its beginnings in Birmingham in 1730, and during its long-time production in Smethwick, it has been producing every sort of stampable machine to comply with weights and measures legislation. Over that great span of years Averys has developed into the leading designer and manufacturer of weighing machines for trade purposes in our country and abroad, and is now world renowned.
It has become the largest weighing machine servicing authority in Britain, with an emphasis on preventive maintenance servicing of industrial mechanical, industrial electronic and retail machines. Avery machines are used throughout bodies of Government, in the Armed Forces, in hospitals, by the National Coal Board, by the CEGB, by British Rail and in nuclear establishments and by various other bodies. They are used throughout the major industries of Britain—steel,

chemicals, shipbuilding, aerospace, textiles and again countless others. They are used in all sectors of private industry, the motor car industry, food, construction and many, many others. They are used by retailers, from supermarkets to corner shops in every village.
I cite all that just to show the extensive usage of Averys products throughout Britain. Because of its long history and its specialised function as a weighing machine manufacturers, Averys has been associated with consumer protection since its inception. Indeed, there is no other enterprise of similar reputation and authority in the United Kingdom, and Averys claim, and I believe rightly, that any change in the drive of its business, or any derogation from its specialist role, would be detrimental to the nation's industrial and commercial life.
Averys Ltd. controls 32 subsidiary companies, 15 of which are United Kingdom companies, and there are associated companies in a number of countries abroad. The subsidiary companies are grouped in three divisions: the weighing and testing division, the general products division and the international division. The turnover of the company has doubled in the five years 1973 to 1977, and its profit return has run at around 15 to 16 per cent. over those years. There are factories producing Averys products in many constituencies throughout Britain.
But last year, on 30 November, the General Electric Company announced that it had made an approach to Avery to discuss the desirability of an association between the two companies. In such sweet terms are takeovers couched. Avery's response was to declare that negotiations on terms for an offer could only start once the commercial and industrial benefits of such a development had been established.
Since then, Averys has had detailed discussions with GEC. It has visited various GEC factories and research facilities to examine the advantages of a merger and to consider whether the resources of GEC would give Averys a greater opportunity to expand and develop new markets. Subsequently, Averys decided that such a merger would benefit neither the industry itself nor its employees, its suppliers or its customers. Now, it is pretty obvious that the Averys activity which GEC is after is that part of its weighing and


metering business where the measuring instrument interfaces with computers, data analysers, control systems and other equipment of various kinds to form a total system tailored by the user to his special needs, Averys believes that GEC has failed to appreciate the importance of the mainstream of Averys activity—the production of standard weighing machines, metering equipment, petrol pumps and so on—and the not unreasonable fear has been expressed that GEC would close or offload all aspects of mechanical weighing and other non-electronic products.
The arguments for Averys rejection of the merger are varied and powerful. It believes that it will he to the detriment of the company and its customers if it is acquired by GEC and prevented from working with GEC's competitors. Assurances to the contrary—that it will be able to continue to supply GEC's competitors—really cannot be satisfactory, because GEC's interests will obviously be paramount. Restrictions on the freedom of Averys to negotiate supply contracts with those competitors—whether it be IBM, Xerox, NCR or Hunting—will mean that those companies will turn to American, Continental or Japanese weighing and metering machine manufacturers, and from the national point of view the adverse effect on the United Kingdom's balance of payments would be serious indeed.
Averys intends to seek commercial arrangements with NCR, which is understood to be moving into Europe, for the supply of weighing machines, both to avoid NCR selling into Britain using Continental machines and to add further to the credit balance of payments which Averys already contributes to our economy with a 40 per cent. export performance.
Again, Averys believes that it is important to remain independent in its specialised field to pursue its policy of developing interfaces suitable for any system supplied by others. Its experience has been that involvement is systems engineering impedes development and marketing of standard products, and it is those standard products which form the basis of its strength.
GEC, in its approach to Averys, has made much of the expertise and produc-

tion capability that it could bring to Averys. But Averys is already well advanced in the application of electronics to weighing equipment as it has kept abreast of new technologies as they have appeared. Averys produced electrically operated weighing recorders way back in the 1930s, and, since the last war, has introduced advantages such as optical projection and digital encoding and, since 1963, electronic weighing
GEC boasts of its use of microprocessors. But Averys already has scales on the market, and in use, incorporating United States microprocessors, and it intends to research the advantages of Fairchild and NEB microprocessors when they become available from United Kingdom production.
There is another factor. Refined mechanical engineering is an essential element in weighing machine construction. The cost of a microprocessor is only 1·7 per cent. of the material cost of the manufacture of a machine such as the Avery 1750 electronic retail scale.
I hope that that helps to put GEC's preoccupation with electronic expertise into its right perspective.
What about the prospect of an increase in mass production—again a GEC argument? The combined delegation of the management and work force, which has been opposing the takover, argued against such a development because of the effects on workers of boredom and the problems that that brings, that weighing machines need to be adjusted and weighed off individually for weights and measures inspectors and that such machines, therefore, need a high degree of skilled testing and fitting. Mass production does not fit in too well with the essential requirement of refined mechanical engineering.
I believe that we should realise, too, that there is increasing sociological appreciation of the fact that bigger is not necessarily better and that, in most cases, work forces are more content, and industrial performance is higher, in medium-sized firms—firms such as Averys which the workers still think of in this day and age as a family firm. Some of my constituents have records of family involvement in that firm extending over 100 years. This is why they think of it in that familiar sense as a family firm.
Averys argues forcibly that it has never been held back by lack of financial resources. The firm thinks that GEC's proposal has more to do with its need to invest its huge surplus of cash than with sensible commercial reasons. The purchase of an existing and successful company does not, of itself, create new factories or more jobs. We in the West Midlands—and I think that my colleagues will agree with me in this—have suffered gravely from job losses over recent months. About 70,000 jobs have gone in our region where once, because of the special Midland skills, we boasted of our high employment rate.
That brings me to perhaps the most important consideration of all from the point of view of the Member of Parliament for a West Midlands seat. The whole work force of Averys is considerably concerned about job security, and, in view of GEC's track record, who can question that? GEC's numerous takeovers have led to rationalisation and asset-stripping which has caused thousands upon thousands of jobs—men's livelihoods are what we are talking about—to disappear.
To take only one example, when GEC took over the English Electric Company in 1969, that led to a cutback of one-third of the total work force. GEC has actually moved in on about 40 companies in toto, and the outcome has been something in the region of 60,000 jobs lost. In many cases those jobs were livelihoods that were gone for good and were skills lost for ever. To what purpose? It was the pure pursuit of profit—or perhaps I should say the impure pursuit of profit—in the commercial and financial interests of a bidder and of an easy buck for the shareholders of the company.
All the unions in the various Avery factories have risen in opposition to this threatened takeover. I have had representations from the AUEW, UCATT, APEX, TGWU and ASTMS and from members of other craft unions. What I think is very significant is that the management of Averys itself, having examined the prospects and potential of the takeover, has come out strongly in opposition, as was spelt out in the statement of 24 January by the chairman, Mr. Hale, a copy of which I have here.
Such combined work force and management opposition is really a remarkable fact in itself and speaks of the deeply reasoned rejection of GEC's bid for control and absorption. Neither management nor workpeople want GEC, which they see as a vulture of captalist exploitation, to settle on its body industrial and tear apart its livelihood and special skills with its self-seeking talons. The head of that sepulchral creature is, of course, well set in the likeness of Sir Arnold Weinstock, whose commercial bloodsucking capabilities are world renowned.
The combined delegation of work force and management made representations—and very forceful representations they were, because I have read them—to the Office of Fair Trading on 17 January. That combined delegation also had a meeting last Friday with the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) was there, as was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), the Solicitor-General, joining in those representations to the Minister with me. I hope that that combined delegation will be coming to the House next week for a meeting with Members of Parliament, when their views can be made known to those of us in the House who care about their future.
There is another most unsatisfactory aspect to this matter. Since Averys rejected the idea of an association in mid-January. GEC has said nothing further. The takeover panel has ruled that since there is no bid situation, as it terms it, there is no requirement on GEC to make any further announcement. This uncertainty is very damaging to Averys, since commercial negotiations and contracts with third parties are obviously inhibited and adversely affected.
The revealing fact, of course, is that GEC is conducting its affairs in its usual aggressive way by not acting within the spirit of the takeover panel's rules, even if it is acting within their wording—behaviour, of course, that the City has learned to expect from Sir Arnold. Perhaps the Minister should look at that aspect of the matter.
But my main appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, through the Minister of State, is that when he receives the report from the Office of Fair Trading


he should consider, especially and sympathetically, the social effects and job losses of the threatened takeover. I trust that the report will be opposed to the GEC attempt and that the Minister will find in favour of rejection.
If the whole matter has to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, one can only hope for rejection of the takeover by that Commission. If not, I do not think that I have to remind the Minister of his powers of making the final decision for himself. For the sake of Avery's excellent industrial record and the livelihoods of its work force, I trust that commercial and compassionate considerations combine to put paid to GEC's avaricious intentions and the effects of those intentions on the life and work of my constituency and those of other constituencies throughout Britain.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. John Sever: I rise in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). I think that the House must concede that he has made a most eloquent and heartfelt speech in support of the people who are working at Averys within his constituency. In a sense, my hon. Friend is very lucky that the factory is not some 200 yards distant from its present location, because he would then not have been able to have involved himself with the splendid people who have come to see us in respect of the problems set before them, for they would have been able to come to see me. I doubt whether they would have had in me a better advocate than my hon. Friend.
None the less, the people working at Averys put to us, at our meeting the other day, two or three central points, upon which my hon. Friend has dwelt. Right up front in the arguments that they put to us was the fact that so many of the families that live in the neighbourhood of the factory are associated with Averys. Many of the people now working there claim lengths of employment that go back for all of their own working lives, and that is associated with lengths of employment of their predecessors which go back throughout their working lives. The record can go back for well over 100 years for very many families who live in the constituencies of Warley, East, Lady-

wood and other constituencies in and around Birmingham.
My hon. Friend has touched on most of the matters which we wish the Minister of State to draw to our right hon. Friend's attention, when considering the reports that come to his office on any proposed merger or takeover by the General Electric Company.
The Avery group, which is a very diverse organisation these days, has its roots in industry in the business of weighing machines and measuring devices. In that context it has been operative for a very long time—indeed, throughout all the time that such equipment has been commercially viable.
During the last 15 years the company has kept abreast of all technological developments, both within its own field and in those associated with its areas of activity. This is heartening, because one of the principal arguments which is often advanced for taking smaller companies into the ownership of larger companies is that the smaller company can no longer cope and can no longer manufacture the goods or deliver them or have command of the expertise that is needed for future research and development.
None of these matters can be justifiably argued against Averys. It is in the forefront of its field. Indeed, it is particularly competitive. It has an investment programme, which is now coming to a conclusion, of about £1 million, which has enabled the company to remain in the forefront of its industry. It is not a valid argument to say that the company cannot cope or that it is not viable for the future. I understand that the order books are full, that customers' commitments can be fully met, and that the work force has the skill and expertise to make the products and to deliver them on time.
The technical resources available to the company are considerable. The company appreciated that its business was capable of considerable expansion. It pursued that line of action and was well placed to take advantage of new technology in the form of microprocessing and a new development in the form of total information services.
These are important developments in companies such as Averys. I am advised that the information systems to which I


have referred are so expertly developed by this company that it has taken a great number of orders over wide areas of competition, including subsidiaries of GEC. That speaks well for a smaller company which, in the face of ferocious international competition, is able to go into a market, put forward its ideas and expertise, and snatch big orders from important customers.
The representations referred to by my hon. Friend come from far and wide—not only from the trade unions with members working in the company and from other groups such as the trade craft unions, but from the directorate and the management of the company. There has been a united effort on behalf of the company to stave off unwelcome creditors. We should do all we can in this House to protect the interests of those who are in need of protection.
In conclusion, I wish to refer to the personal representations which have been made to several hon. Members about the local position.

Mr. Reginald Eyre: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that his remarks have the support of all Birmingham Conservative Members?

Mr. Sever: I am prepared to accept that from the hon. Gentleman. As the development of Averys' case is put forward, I am sure that we shall see hon. Members on both sides of the House arguing the case for an independent company.
I wish to emphasise the representations which have been made locally. I refer to representations from APEX—the clerical workers' union of which I am a member—which approached me and explained the hardship experienced by many of its Birmingham members and by West Midland families following recent takeovers, mergers and amalgamations.
My hon. Friend referred to the enormous loss of job opportunities following previous GEC takeovers and the fears in many families in the Birmingham area. Such takeovers are difficult to quantify in terms of human disaster. These considerations will weigh heavily with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, and I know that they will be in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for

Prices and Consumer Protection, who ultimately will be asked to take a decision.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Bruce George: I wish to support my hon. Friends the Members for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) and Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever). One of the great virtues of this debate—when for an Adjournment debate the House is unusually full—is that we are able to discuss issues other than those which are normally dealt with in a takeover or proposed takeover. A company considering whether to take over another company does not always consider the human side, but only the economic and financial effects. However, in this debate we are able to examine more deeply the human effects on Averys, a company which has had a profitable record but which is being taken over by a larger company.
None of us wishes to attack Sir Arnold Weinstock, who has helped to make his company a major force in British and indeed in world industry. Nevertheless, the work force is terrified at its perception of GEC and Sir Arnold Weinstock. That perception may or may not be right, but the situation of companies that have been taken over by Sir Arnold is fresh in people's memories. This does not encourage those working for Averys to think that their future will he secure if they are taken over.
In my constituency a medium-sized company called Driver Southall Limited is part of the Avery group. It is a highly successful company. Although not unique is my constituency, it is a pleasure to see a company that has a good management team, a contented work force and good relations between management and unions. It is a company that is successfully exploiting the market. We have heard frequently of the use of microprocessors. It was reported recently by the Department of Industry that only some 5 per cent. of companies in Great Britain were using microprocessors. But here is a company pioneering what will be a revolutionary process in modern industry. The company came to my constituency two years ago. It is innovative, excellent and has great prospects.
I would not defend a company purely because employment prospects were possibly to be diminished. As a member of


the Labour Party I am obviously concerned at the prospect of job losses, but one's justification must be based on something more. We are resisting this attempted takeover not just because people fear for their jobs but because we cannot see how the national interest will be advanced by this highly effective and efficient company being reluctantly brought into association with GEC.
Although I am not a shareholder in Averys, in a letter sent out to all shareholders in the third paragraph the chairman says:
Following these discussions the Board of Averys announces that it considers a merger between the two companies would not benefit either the industry in which it operates or its employees, suppliers or customers. As an independent company, Averys has been able to expand into new markets whenever profitable opportunities have arisen and it has not been, and does not expect to be, constrained from expansion by a lack of technical or financial resources. Averys is at present well advanced in the application of electronics to weighing equipment and has the ability to maintain the necessary development. Also its present independent position enables Averys to provide measuring equipment to all suppliers of total information and control systems throughout the world.
These days one rarely finds unanimity between management and unions, and not in every case between union and union. But everyone in this company appears to be opposed to the takeover. I am not filled with affection for free enterprise, and it angers me that the shareholders' interests are always considered in a takeover. There are many other people in this company affected apart from the shareholders, and I care rather less about shareholders' interests than about those who work in the company.
This company is operating well and cannot see any advantage in being taken over. Indeed, quite the reverse. It is fearful of what Sir Arnold has done in the past. If one reads the book "Anatomy of a Merger" by Jones and Marriot, one is not encouraged in the contrary view. Sir Arnold as an ogre is perhaps somewhat overstated. But if one looks at the history surrounding the incorporation of GEC, AEI and English Electric, one has nightmares as to what might happen to other companies.
The Avery company is competitive, its customers are satisfied, the staff are satis-

fied and its shareholders appear to be satisfied. What can GEC offer in the way of know-how? The customers could be frightened away, and that is hardly conducive to future profitability.
A number of unions have approached me on this matter. One union official wrote to me saying:
Our concern is based on previous takeovers conducted by GEC which have resulted in widespread redundancies. In fact, a number of Driver Southall employees have suffered redundancies as a result of GEC takeovers at other companies. This is further confirmed by the well known reputation of Sir Arnold Weinstock as being an asset stripper.
History has shown that not all rationalisations have been successful. I can think of many companies where the process of amalgamation and accumulation has led to a strengthening of the company, and obviously it is vital for our industrial prospects that industry is viable and efficient. If takeovers are neccessary and the workers comply willingly, I would not oppose them per se.
However, in the past we have seen the debit side of rationalisation. Unemployment is certainly one major factor. Because of the fierce combined resistance of the unions and management in this case, I urge the Minister to pass on to his colleagues the views of hon. Members here and to resist this takeover.
The previous Labour Government played a crucial part in facilitating the merger between GEC and English Electric. That may have been a success, but I hope that the Government will look closely at the social and economic arguments in this case and come to the conclusion that GEC should continue in its own highly profitable way but that Averys should also continue what it has done in the past and be able to develop unhindered by the prospect of incorporation against its will into GEC.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I do not wish to intervene at length. I respect the views of hon. Members who have spoken who are moved primarily by their substantial constituency interest. Perhaps it will add a little breadth to the debate if I put my point of view. Although I do not have a constituency interest, this suggested merger causes me the greatest possible concern. I have had a substantial


involvement with Averys because of my involvement with weights and measures legislation. We shall discuss the Weights and Measures Bill in Committee next Tuesday, so it is highly appropriate that we should discuss tonight the future and prospects of the leading manufacturer of metering equipment in this country.
I make three short observations. First, the public interest must be the main concern. We have had a tradition in this country of extremely effective consumer protection through the correct handling and manufacturing of weighing scales and through their wide distribution and service to the consumer. I see no way in which we can say that the industry has faulted the consumer in failing to provide adequate equipment of high standard to sustain value for money at the point of sale.
Secondly, the Avery company has achieved a worldwide reputation. There can be relatively few sectors of British industry in which a world-wide reputation is still jealously guarded. So many sectors have been undermined by foreign competition or innovation in other directions. But the Avery company has been able to achieve a continued success because it has remained at the forefront of its technological development and has extended the range and acceptability of its products.
Thirdly, and particularly important, there can be arguments in a marketing sense for seeing that a merger takes place. However, there can be no such arguments in a market where, despite its size, Averys has pursued a policy that has allowed many other smaller companies to develop. It is not just the only giant in the weighing scales manufacturing industry. There are many other smaller companies, each of which is a specialist in its own right, and they have been able to survive.
Therefore, we are not talking about the overweening power of one major unit in its market. Averys has achieved market stability through its success.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) recognised that this is an all-party issue. In my constituency there is a satisfactory subsidiary of GEC, and I feel that if the merger goes ahead it could be to the detriment not only of the weighing scale

manufacturing industry but of the public at large.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The W. and T. Avery company should be proud that hon. Members from the Midlands have recognised the quality, efficiency and good will of the company in all the tributes that have been paid to it here tonight. Would that every hon. Member could say the same for every other industrial or manufacturing company in this country. The tributes are deserved and should be recognised as such by the House.
I do not intervene simply to show that Liverpool Members have the motto "Ubique", but my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) said that W. and T. Avery is not only a Midlands-based company—and I was delighted to hear that there is more unanimity among Midlands Members tonight than there was at this time last night. W. & T. Avery has subsidiaries, service companies and associations in many other parts of the country.
On Merseyside, we have a division of the company called the Ashworth Ross Division, of 50–56 Fox Street, Liverpool 3—a first-class company. It is not situated in my constituency and therefore I have not a direct constituency interest. However, for a Merseyside Member of Parliament, anything that happens in Liverpool is of interest, just as anything that happens in Birmingham is of interest to Midlands Members of Parliament.
The Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East know that every Merseyside Member of Parliament received a letter this morning from the office staff of the Ashworth Ross division. The staff wrote to tell us of their deep anxiety and concern at the proposed merger or takeover of "their company", as they called it—with or by GEC. The letters have been passed to the Minister.

Mr. Faulds: In my speech I forgot to mention that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Judd) had asked me to say that he has had strong representations from constituents who work in the Havant factory of Averys who, along with the management, are concerned about the threat to their jobs and their livelihood from the threatened takeover.

Mr. Ogden: I am grateful for that intervention, and I am certain that the Minister has noticed that this is not only a Midlands matter—important as that would be—but has ramifications all over the country wherever there is a factory or associate factory of Averys. The workers and the management in those factories are opposed to the merger, and their opposition has been made clear.
The office staff in Liverpool say that their company has real and proper regard for the need to be effective, competitive and viable. They also have regard for the need to maintain present employment and retain maximum employment on Merseyside, to support Government regional policies and to do everything possible to increase employment opportunities within the company. That is not merely a short-term measure—no feather-bedding, carrying or false work-sharing there—but applies to the long term.
It is not for me to judge from outside the relative efficiency or viability of Averys or GEC or to say whether the merger would be good or bad. I do not have the qualifications to do that.
However, there is a major GEC factory in West Derby and regularly over 14 years —too often at times—I have been involved in the affairs of the three GEC companies on that one complex. I have been involved officially, unofficially at union and management level, and all along the line. The factories have had their share of troubles, and only a small part has been of their making. Certainly, the considerable financial losses of parts of the factory complex have been carried for many years, as a conscious decision, by Sir Arnold Weinstock and his company. If I disagreed with anything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East, it was with some of the adjectives that he used to describe Sir Arnold. He may be firm and hard, but he can have a soft heart and he has directed a great deal of company money to Merseyside, to Northern Ireland and to other parts of the country to maintain employment there.
However, I have to put on record that in 1964 there were 10,000 people working at the GEC factories on East Lancashire Road, Liverpool, and there are now only 2,500 working there. Had it not

been for rationalisation and reorganisation, we may not even have had those 2,500 still in work, but, despite everything that has been done, the overall result has been a reduction in unemployment.
We hope that that disastrous trend has been halted. The GEC company has shown its faith in Merseyside. The GEC—Fairchild microchip factory is coming to Merseyside. GEC plans to move to a new start in new factories close by. We have the new GEC-Shreiber factory at Runcorn coming along. We have a new start for GEC on Merseyside.
My only reason for intervening is to confirm that the problem is not just a matter for the Midlands. Averys-GEC concerns many other parts of the country. We have now put on record that the workers on Merseyside support the representations of their colleagues in other factories. Above all, we ask the Minister—though, with his reputation, we have no need to ask—to have regard to the security of employment, not just in the short term but in the long term, and to bear in mind the representations made by workers on Merseyside and, in other factories.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: W. and T. Avery has been part of the Birmingham area scene for many years and is an integral part of Birmingham industry. Its passing as a separate unit would be regretted by almost all Birmingham citizens.
My experience of GEC has not been as fortunate as that of some of my hon. Friends. One of the orginal GEC plants was located at Witton, in my constituency. It once employed 15,000 people, but, over the years and under the new GEC regime, it has been dismantled and for a time the site was almost a desert. That is known throughout Birmingham and Smethwick, and when Averys employees look at what has happened at Witton they are naturally fearful not only for the continuation of their company but for the security of their jobs.
I do not doubt that Sir Arnold Weinstock is a competent business man who looks after the interests of his shareholders and perhaps sometimes goes beyond that, but the record of his company in Birmingham does not inspire


confidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) will know about what has happened at Witton. It is one of the main reasons why the workers at Averys are alarmed, and I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the representations made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

9.58 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): This is the first Adjournment debate that I have answered in which there have been eight speakers. Seven hon. Members have risen, but the Government Whip tonight is my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich. East (Mr. Snape) and he has been whispering in my ear.
The speeches have shown the widespread geographical nature of Averys' business. Every hon. Member has argued strongly and expressed forceful concern about the employment of constiuents and the possibility—I put it no higher than that—of a take over of Averys by GEC. I have listened carefully to all the points made on this subject, which is of critical importance to hon. Members and their constituents.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have also listened closely to representations from both companies concerned and to the delegation of hon. Members from the Midlands. In addition to those representations, the debate will be of great value in focusing attention on some of the problems that will bear on my right hon. Friend's eventual decision.
I feel that this is rather like a case where there have been resounding speeches by counsel and then there is a reserved judgment. It would be improper if I anticipated the decision which eventually my right hon. Friend will take on this case. Mergers prior to decisions are matters—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]

Mr. Fraser: I was saying that it would be improper if I anticipated in any way the eventual decision of the Secretary of State.
Decisions about references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are matters where the uttermost degree of confidentiality should be observed and where Ministers and officials should always act with the greatest degree of discretion.
In responding to the debate, therefore, I cannot speak about this case in detail as a result of the quite proper legal and administrative constraints placed upon me, but I believe that it would be helpful if I outlined those legal and administrative constraints and the overall policy in the context of which my right hon. Friend will formulate his decision.
Successive Governments have recognised the possible dangers to competition from a company or group of companies gaining a position of such dominance that they are able to exercise monopoly powers to the disadvantage of the consumer. This does not mean that large is necessarily evil, that small is necessarily good, that medium is necessarily beautiful. Indeed, considerations of wider industrial strategy have led the Government to conclude that from time to time certain mergers were in the public interest to enable an effective United Kingdom company to gain the economies of scale which would allow it to compete successfully with foreign multinational giants. But the dangers are there, and it has long been recognised that there is a need to consider whether the creation or strengthening of a monopoly position would indeed bring about this improved efficiency and, if so, whether the disadvantages in other areas outweighed any industrial advantages that might accrue.
For a merger which creates or increases a share of more than 25 per cent. of a particular market in the United Kingdom or in a substantial part of the United Kingdom, or—this is a separate test—where the enterprise to be acquired has assets of more than £5 million, the Fair Trading Act 1973 requires that the Director General of Fair Trading makes recommendations to my right hon. Friend on whether the merger should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for investigation.
In practice, the Office of Fair Trading will keep itself informed about actual or prospective mergers qualifying for consideration under the Act and will undertake initial inquiries. The Office of Fair Trading will then put its assessment of the merger proposal in a paper to the mergers panel. This is an interdepartmental committee of officials from interested Departments under the chairmanship of the Deputy Director General of Fair Trading. This enables all interested Departments to put their views before the Director General makes his recommendation to my right hon. Friend.
I might mention here for the sake of completeness that in some cases a company may approach the Office of Fair Trading asking for confidential guidance on whether a proposal which it has in mind but has not yet made public is likely to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. However, such guidance normally is given only in straightforward cases, because it is not possible for the Office of Fair Trading to undertake inquiries as extensive as would have been undertaken were there no approach, including seeking the reactions of other interested parties. Whether the confidential guidance is that on the basis of available information it seems unlikely that my right hon. Friend would wish to refer a proposed merger to the Commission or that a reference would seem likely, it is possible to give only a conditional decision. The giving of confidential guidance does not make the eventual decision a formality.
A decision on whether to refer a merger to the Commission resides with my right hon. Friend. He will reach his decision after considering the Director General's advice and all the representations which have been or may be made by interested parties, including, not least, the representations which have been made tonight.
It is very important to note here that a decision to refer a proposed merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission does not necessarily imply that the Government disapprove of the merger. However, it does imply that the Government consider that there are sufficient matters of significance to merit consideration by the Commission on the ground of public interest. The aim of the procedure is to

enable those mergers which raise genuine doubts about their likely impact on the public interest to receive detailed independent investigation.
In determining whether a merger, or any particular aspect of a merger, may be against the public interest, the Commission is required to take account of all matters which appear to be relevant in the particular circumstances of the case. This will include, in particular, the effects of the merger on competition, including whether or not it will increase the efficiency, the innovative ability and the export potential of the eventual company. It will include the effects on regional policy and the effects on employment in the United Kingdom or a particular area of the United Kingdom. Once there has been a reference to the Commission, any person or any group of persons is free to make representations to the Commission in the course of its consideration.
The Commission is normally expected to report within six months of the making of a reference. If, and only if, the Commission finds that a merger is against the public interest, my right hon. Friend, after taking account of any advice from the Director General, may decide to take action under the Act to prevent the merger from taking place. I know that I have not given any hint of a response. My hon. Friends and hon. Members will understand the reason, which I have explained. But I hope it will have been helpful to have given a brief summary of the context in which the proposals which are the subject of tonight's debate will be considered.
The particular proposal which has been raised tonight meets both the size of assets and the market share criteria which I explained earlier

Mr. Faulds: Am I wrong in thinking that the Secretary of State has final power in the resolution of these matters to overrule whatever decision the Monopolies and Mergers Commission makes?

Mr. Fraser: No. That is not so. The Secretary of State may prevent a merger under the Fair Trading Act only if there has been a report of the Monopolies and Members Commission which finds against the merger. A finding against the merger, if my recollection is correct, must be by a two-thirds majority.
As I say, the particular proposal which has been raised tonight meets both the size of assets—that is the £5 million test —and the market share criteria. My right hon. Friend has now received the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading and has heard the views of representatives of interested parties. The views expressed here tonight will also be put before him. I expect that his decision on this matter will be announced quite shortly.
In conclusion, I stress that nothing I have said this evening should be taken as implying a preference for any particular option open to my right hon. Friend, but I assure the House that the views expressed tonight and the views expressed previously in representations to my right hon. Friend and myself will be given the fullest consideration before a decision is announced.

Mr. Faulds: Before the Minister sits down, will he comment on the point I raised in my speech? The uncertainty created in the "no bid" situation, in view of the takeover panel's ruling, should perhaps be examined to see whether there is some way of removing that element of uncertainty and to know whether or not there is a bid in the offing.

Mr. Fraser: I would rather not comment on that, but I shall think about what my hon. Friend has said. It would be unwise to say something off the curt where stock markets are affected. I shall certainly think about it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Ten o'clock.